Caolan McNamara wrote: > On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 16:39 +0100, Rony G. Flatscher wrote: >> Taking all of this into account it seems to be a very attractive goal to >> create (or employ thired party) libraries in Java as that would truly >> help to cut down porting costs, as usually you won't have no porting >> costs with Java. E.g. look at the XML processing Java libraries that are >> also used in OOo. > > A minimum base-line of java 1.5 for the java bits of OOo should be no > problem for libgcj, so there's no problem (in theory at least) for the > various ports of OOo to platforms that either don't have a port of or > cannot use the "traditional" sun java or free icedtea version. e.g. > fedora on arm-eabi, debian on mips, s390 etc where gcj is the only > solution. Just keep away from the sun.* classes which are documented in > the sun java api itself as "not to be used" and all should be good wrt. > portability between those java implementations. > > But the launch time for our java-based wizards isn't exactly speedy and > helpcontent2 when it was moved from the java app to the libxslt based > c++ one slashed multi-language build times, so using java ain't without > some pitfalls :-)
Of course we would never consider to implement something in Java that is not loaded on demand triggered by user action. For now we decided to check out the C library mentioned by Hubert. We will wrap it behind a UNO API anyway and in the worst case we had to reimplement that API based on Sesame later on. Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Please don't reply to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
