On 23.12.2010 17:49, Jan Holst Jensen wrote: > On 2010-12-23 17:30, Rony G. Flatscher wrote: >> On 22.12.2010 19:13, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: >>> On 12/22/10 6:03 PM, Martin Dobiasch wrote: >>> >> ... cut ... >>>> Its installed as I've tested some other code on that Mac using the >>>> Midi API >>>> of Sun-Java. For example the same extension works for NeoOffice. >>>> Do you know where in the code I can find the java implementation? >>>> Maybe I >>>> can dig into it and compare Libre/Open-Office with NeoOffice >>>> >>> The UI of NeoOffice is completely Java based i assume they run >>> native 64 >>> bit. Anyway you can't simply compare NeoOffice with OpenOffice.org >>> here. >>> >>> Don't expect a fix form LibO they work more in the direction to remove >>> Java completely ;-) >>> >> Why would they want to cripple OOo that badly ? >> >> Do you happen to know the rationale by any chance? >> Maybe the question rephrased to make it more on-track: would there be a >> problem with Java in OOo, such that removing Java would solve a problem? >> And if so, what would it be? > > Most of OOo is written in C++ so it won't be badly crippled if Java is > removed from the product. I have used OOo without Java on a machine > and almost all of OOo works just fine without Java. That's the point: not all of OOo is written in C++ anymore, there are quite important subsystems written in Java.
One premiere example is the scripting subsystem, which makes JavaScript, BeanShell, ooRexx and others available to OOo. Removing Java removes all these options and renders programs written in these languages useless. Another premiere example is the Java-API-interface to the entire OOo. Removing Java removes the ability to use OOo from Java and to deploy all Java applications that use OOo. Therefore the conclusion, that removing Java from OOo yields OOo to be badly crippled. > As far as I can understand LibreOffice is just trying to minimize the > _dependency_ on Java. Developers will still be able to write > extensions in Java but the core (of LibreOffice) won't ideally require > a Java runtime anymore. It removes the ability for Java programmers to use LO and it removes the ability to script LO with the scripting languages added since OOo 2.0. > As for the reasons: It would potentially minimize memory usage and > some are probably concerned about the Oracle <> Google debacle: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg02492.html > http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg02612.html I cannot see why this has anything to do with LO. ---rony --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@api.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@api.openoffice.org
