the wiki is outdated.... but yeap.. java has been released as the link you sent a little bit ago, and i see no barrier to use it (i remark "i" because i use it, and that's and advange for me because i just know C++ and a little of perl) i hope java would stay so i can be more active in the development :).
On 4/11/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BTW, here's some information on Java & OpenOffice, although it seems a bit dated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org#Java_controversy. The text of the page says that Java is not open source in opposition to this page: http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/ Gil On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 11:08 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi all, > > Shawn has done a great job assembling and summarizing the feature list > into a document > ( http://oopm.openoffice.org/files/documents/177/3890/OOPM_Requirements_v4.ods ) > > Shawn and I spoke today and we've agreed that the next step is to start > refining the ideas for v0.1 into a set of basic requirements and to > start to flesh out some of the architecture. > > It looks like the basic idea of the v0.1 release is to demonstrate that > we can create an OOo component that accepts input data, persists it to > storage, and visualizes the result in some basic format. > > It would be nice to have an effort, parallel to the requirements > definition effort, that prototypes some of the ideas and plays around > with UNO concepts to ensure that the requirements are practical given > the tools we're using. It will also be a valuable learning experience > for making sure that v0.1 is a sound basis upon which to build. > > To support the prototyping effort, we have before us a decision to be > made -- we need to start choosing a development language. There are a > number of choices, according to http://udk.openoffice.org/: > > - Java > - Delphi > - C++ > - CLI > - Python > - Perl > - tcl > > > Some of these can be dismissed immediately (like Delphi since it's only > available on the Windows platform) thereby reducing the list somewhat > but I think that most bear discussion. There's also no concrete reason > to choose just one implementation language, although that causes more > development effort to be expended (and it looks like we're in dire need > of developers :) > > I, myself, favour Java as the development language for oopm. > > Gil
