Il 07/01/2010 10:42, Stephan Bergmann ha scritto: > On 01/06/10 22:18, Carlo Strata wrote: >> I don't know if you already discuss about this question, but I want to >> understand if native code plugins are useful or they mainly slow their >> own diffusion/adoption in all platforms... >> >> I know that OpenOffice.org needs java virtual machine to run his db >> engine (hsqldb - 100% Java Database). >> >> So why we didn't deploy all plugins in the .jar format (bytecode)? >> >> I said .xpi too in the mail's object because Mozilla too has the same >> "problem", hasn't it? >> >> The java jit (just-in-time) compiler has today very good performance so >> that if we will choose the jar way we could have no human feel with >> performance decline. >> >> In this new way, the diffusion of the extensions (plugins) for all >> platforms would be *wider* and their update *faster* for user of all >> platforms. > > In case you did not know, the code in an .oxt extension can be written > in a variety of languages, including C++ (leading to native code with > all its problems you already pointed out) and Java (leading to > universally deployable extensions). The choice is up to the extension > author. Many extensions actually *are* written in Java. > > -Stephan > Thank you Stephan, I should have imagined this opportunity...
But, if I have to choose an example of a non java (?) extension, I point out the "plugin king": http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/project/pdfimport in which webpage you can find a list (!) of supported platform and not only one (.oxt masked .jar) download... This, however, to agree with your clear explanation. Carlo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
