Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Full Text Issue Listing
|Summary:||Assigning document icons to file types even when user sets soffice as default applicaton.|
|Component:||ui||Assignee:||AOO issues mailing list <issues>|
|Status:||CONFIRMED ---||QA Contact:|
|Priority:||P4||CC:||issues, mikhail.voytenko, olaf-openoffice|
|Issue Type:||ENHANCEMENT||Latest Confirmation in:||---|
Description drewjensen.inbox 2009-09-24 15:42:22 UTC
This is probably more then just Win 7 but didn't go back and double check on XP or Gnome. Checked w/ Win 7, OO.o 3.2 (m_56 - odficons) from qa-upload. After installing OO.o use the windows manager to select soffice as the default application for some ODF file type (.odt, .odp, etc) the icon displayed in the windows manager will change to the default OO.o file icon. The file type metadata remains correct. i.e. OpenDocument Text for .odt see attached screen shots - File browser Shot 1 - .odb assigned to soffice Shot 2 - .odb assigned to sbase
Comment 1 drewjensen.inbox 2009-09-24 15:43:10 UTC
Created attachment 64934 [details] odb file assigned to open with soffice.exe
Comment 2 drewjensen.inbox 2009-09-24 15:43:44 UTC
Created attachment 64935 [details] odb file assigned to open with sbase.exe
Comment 3 Olaf Felka 2009-09-30 10:01:00 UTC
@ mav: Any idea on this?
Comment 4 mikhail.voytenko 2009-09-30 10:48:10 UTC
Hm, I am not sure that I understand the scenario correctly. Why do you need to set the soffice as the default application for the files? The installation assign already the correct handler for the documents. And when a document is assigned to soffice.exe, it gets of course the icon from the application to which it is assigned. This is how windows works. So it is not a bug at all, it is just a misuse of the application. Please correct me if I have misunderstood the scenario.
Comment 5 drewjensen.inbox 2009-10-02 00:22:55 UTC
Well, I hesitated in opening this as a defect - upon further thought I changed from defect to enhancement, the summary and the priority - continue for the long explanation. Yes, in the scenarios I know of, and those that I assume I understand, it really is a case of user error. One scenario I have seen first hand: They had MSO and downloaded OO.o to try it. During the trial they did not change default application settings in the window manager. Eventually they decided to stick with OO.o and so went to make the association, by hand - because OO.o was already installed - and for whatever reason, accident, ignorance or laziness they select soffice(.exe) vs the appropriate application. Till now it was of no real consequence. IMO however, if the file type icons are to now play a particular branding role beyond the applications brand then this is a bit more worthy of some thought and perhaps effort. In other words seems like it would be worth the effort, *if* the time and effort is small. Given that some code changes must be happening to support setting odf vs non-odf icons from the module executables - then this might be the right moment to address this. In other words, even if the user does select soffice have the code handle it and give the correct icon, per file type, to the OS windowing manager. All that said - this is IMO a 'like' not a 'need' feature so 1: may not be appropriate for 3.2 2: isn't worth a great deal of engineering time
Comment 6 mikhail.voytenko 2009-10-02 08:34:25 UTC
I see your point. You mean that we should try to workaround the problem in case of this scenario. The problem is that on windows AFAIK the assignment of an executable to an application takes the icon from the executable. So I see no solution currently. Our problem is that we have soffice.exe, an executable that can be used for any kind of document supported by OOo. So a user could assign it to a file type. It is comfortable for the user, but it brings also restrictions. One of them is that there is only one icon that will be used for documents that are assigned to soffice.exe. I see currently no way to solve it, although that does not mean that there is no such way. I am changing the Summary, since the issue has nothing to do with the new icons. It is a general problem that we had before as well.