Re: Java 9 32-bit

2017-10-04 Thread Peter kovacs
Hmm I was not answering you. Should have picked Damian mal.

The suggestion to use .net is to translate to c#. Or I misread. Sorry.

Am 4. Oktober 2017 20:50:06 MESZ schrieb Marcus :
>Am 04.10.2017 um 08:54 schrieb Peter kovacs:
>
>are you answering my mail or was this just a random reply?
>I'm wondering as I don't see anything new in your mail.
>
>> How relevant is Win 32 bit in future?
>
>0,0 %
>
>> Shouldn't we offer a Win 64bit in long run?
>
>Of course.
>
>> Why move to C#? I do not see the benefit.
>
>Nobody wants to move to C#.
>
>Marcus
>
>
>
>> Am 3. Oktober 2017 23:18:12 MESZ schrieb Marcus
>:
>>> Am 03.10.2017 um 22:26 schrieb Kay Schenk:
 On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Fernando Cassia 
>>> wrote:

> On 10/3/17, Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:
>> Now what:
>> 1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the
>>> licences
>> (GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library)
>allow
>>> us
> to?
>> 2. Drop Windows as a platform, since it's the only affected
>>> platform
> (*nix
>> users usually install distro OpenJDK packages so 32 bit OpenJDK
>>> will be
>> available for 32 bit AOO). We have no Win64 AOO.
>> 3. Drop 32 bit versions of AOO and add Win64 support.
>> 4. Or drop Java entirely and port our Java code to eg. .NET core,
>>> which
> is
>> liberally licensed and private copies of it can be shipped?
>>
>> Damjan
>
> Tempest in a teapot. You do know that Oracle isn't the only
>provider
> of Java or OpenJDK, right?
>
> Options
> 1. You can buiild your own 32-bit x86 binary based on OpenJDK
>>> sources.
> 2. make AOO compile OK on 64 bit thus making AOO a 64-bit Windows
>>> app,
> able to use any 64-bit JRE (Oracle JRE, IBM JRE, Azul's Zulu JRE)
> 3. Have you asked Azul Systems if they can provide a 32-bit build?
> 4. Compile the Java code in AOO as native with Java 9's AOT
>>> compiler?
> http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/295
>
> Just my $0.02
> FC
>
>
 ​As a bystander, I'm wondering just how alarming this news is to
>>> Apache
 OpenOffice.
>>>
>>> IMHO not at all. Java 9 was published just 2 weeks ago. So, it will
>>> take
>>> some time until it's the favorite one. Until then 8 is developer's
>>> darling.
>>>
 The builds are using Java 6 or 7, right?​
>>>
>>> With the next larger release (probably 4.2.0) we will use Java 8
>which
>>> should last a longer time. Time enough to decide what to do with the
>>> dependency of Java 32-bit.
>>>
I'm still on 32-bit Linux for now but my default OpenJDK is 1.8.
>I
>>> can run
 AOO fine with it but must use 1.7 for building.
>
>
>-
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Java 9 32-bit

2017-10-04 Thread Marcus

Am 04.10.2017 um 08:54 schrieb Peter kovacs:

are you answering my mail or was this just a random reply?
I'm wondering as I don't see anything new in your mail.


How relevant is Win 32 bit in future?


0,0 %


Shouldn't we offer a Win 64bit in long run?


Of course.


Why move to C#? I do not see the benefit.


Nobody wants to move to C#.

Marcus




Am 3. Oktober 2017 23:18:12 MESZ schrieb Marcus :

Am 03.10.2017 um 22:26 schrieb Kay Schenk:

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Fernando Cassia 

wrote:



On 10/3/17, Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:

Now what:
1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the

licences

(GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library) allow

us

to?

2. Drop Windows as a platform, since it's the only affected

platform

(*nix

users usually install distro OpenJDK packages so 32 bit OpenJDK

will be

available for 32 bit AOO). We have no Win64 AOO.
3. Drop 32 bit versions of AOO and add Win64 support.
4. Or drop Java entirely and port our Java code to eg. .NET core,

which

is

liberally licensed and private copies of it can be shipped?

Damjan


Tempest in a teapot. You do know that Oracle isn't the only provider
of Java or OpenJDK, right?

Options
1. You can buiild your own 32-bit x86 binary based on OpenJDK

sources.

2. make AOO compile OK on 64 bit thus making AOO a 64-bit Windows

app,

able to use any 64-bit JRE (Oracle JRE, IBM JRE, Azul's Zulu JRE)
3. Have you asked Azul Systems if they can provide a 32-bit build?
4. Compile the Java code in AOO as native with Java 9's AOT

compiler?

http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/295

Just my $0.02
FC



​As a bystander, I'm wondering just how alarming this news is to

Apache

OpenOffice.


IMHO not at all. Java 9 was published just 2 weeks ago. So, it will
take
some time until it's the favorite one. Until then 8 is developer's
darling.


The builds are using Java 6 or 7, right?​


With the next larger release (probably 4.2.0) we will use Java 8 which
should last a longer time. Time enough to decide what to do with the
dependency of Java 32-bit.


   I'm still on 32-bit Linux for now but my default OpenJDK is 1.8. I

can run

AOO fine with it but must use 1.7 for building.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Java 9 32-bit

2017-10-04 Thread Peter kovacs
How relevant is Win 32 bit in future?
Shouldn't we offer a Win 64bit in long run?

Why move to C#? I do not see the benefit.
I would rather opt for a clean modern C++ library design with hourglass APIs. 
With that we can support all languages people want to use in an extention.
And we reduce complexity on our side.
No license issues whatsoever is also on the boon fact.

All the best
Peter



Am 3. Oktober 2017 23:18:12 MESZ schrieb Marcus :
>Am 03.10.2017 um 22:26 schrieb Kay Schenk:
>> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Fernando Cassia 
>wrote:
>> 
>>> On 10/3/17, Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:
 Now what:
 1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the
>licences
 (GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library) allow
>us
>>> to?
 2. Drop Windows as a platform, since it's the only affected
>platform
>>> (*nix
 users usually install distro OpenJDK packages so 32 bit OpenJDK
>will be
 available for 32 bit AOO). We have no Win64 AOO.
 3. Drop 32 bit versions of AOO and add Win64 support.
 4. Or drop Java entirely and port our Java code to eg. .NET core,
>which
>>> is
 liberally licensed and private copies of it can be shipped?

 Damjan
>>>
>>> Tempest in a teapot. You do know that Oracle isn't the only provider
>>> of Java or OpenJDK, right?
>>>
>>> Options
>>> 1. You can buiild your own 32-bit x86 binary based on OpenJDK
>sources.
>>> 2. make AOO compile OK on 64 bit thus making AOO a 64-bit Windows
>app,
>>> able to use any 64-bit JRE (Oracle JRE, IBM JRE, Azul's Zulu JRE)
>>> 3. Have you asked Azul Systems if they can provide a 32-bit build?
>>> 4. Compile the Java code in AOO as native with Java 9's AOT
>compiler?
>>> http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/295
>>>
>>> Just my $0.02
>>> FC
>>>
>>>
>> ​As a bystander, I'm wondering just how alarming this news is to
>Apache
>> OpenOffice.
>
>IMHO not at all. Java 9 was published just 2 weeks ago. So, it will
>take 
>some time until it's the favorite one. Until then 8 is developer's
>darling.
>
>> The builds are using Java 6 or 7, right?​
>
>With the next larger release (probably 4.2.0) we will use Java 8 which 
>should last a longer time. Time enough to decide what to do with the 
>dependency of Java 32-bit.
>
>>   I'm still on 32-bit Linux for now but my default OpenJDK is 1.8. I
>can run
>> AOO fine with it but must use 1.7 for building.
>
>Marcus
>
>-
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Java 9 32-bit

2017-10-03 Thread Marcus

Am 03.10.2017 um 22:26 schrieb Kay Schenk:

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Fernando Cassia  wrote:


On 10/3/17, Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:

Now what:
1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the licences
(GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library) allow us

to?

2. Drop Windows as a platform, since it's the only affected platform

(*nix

users usually install distro OpenJDK packages so 32 bit OpenJDK will be
available for 32 bit AOO). We have no Win64 AOO.
3. Drop 32 bit versions of AOO and add Win64 support.
4. Or drop Java entirely and port our Java code to eg. .NET core, which

is

liberally licensed and private copies of it can be shipped?

Damjan


Tempest in a teapot. You do know that Oracle isn't the only provider
of Java or OpenJDK, right?

Options
1. You can buiild your own 32-bit x86 binary based on OpenJDK sources.
2. make AOO compile OK on 64 bit thus making AOO a 64-bit Windows app,
able to use any 64-bit JRE (Oracle JRE, IBM JRE, Azul's Zulu JRE)
3. Have you asked Azul Systems if they can provide a 32-bit build?
4. Compile the Java code in AOO as native with Java 9's AOT compiler?
http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/295

Just my $0.02
FC



​As a bystander, I'm wondering just how alarming this news is to Apache
OpenOffice.


IMHO not at all. Java 9 was published just 2 weeks ago. So, it will take 
some time until it's the favorite one. Until then 8 is developer's darling.



The builds are using Java 6 or 7, right?​


With the next larger release (probably 4.2.0) we will use Java 8 which 
should last a longer time. Time enough to decide what to do with the 
dependency of Java 32-bit.



  I'm still on 32-bit Linux for now but my default OpenJDK is 1.8. I can run
AOO fine with it but must use 1.7 for building.


Marcus

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Java 9 32-bit

2017-10-03 Thread Andrea Pescetti

Damjan Jovanovic wrote:

1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the licences
(GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library) allow us to?

To answer my own question, we can't ship OpenJDK - according to
http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional "Apache projects cannot
distribute any such components within their releases".


Well, "we can't" is always simplistic when coming to Apache rules. If 
something can't be distributed WITHIN a release (a source release) it 
may still be possible to bundle it with the the binary releases, much 
like what we do with dictionaries. Of course this needs discussion and 
validation (and a lot of patience) but the process can be started if we 
see value in it as a temporary fix.


Regards,
  Andrea.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Java 9 32-bit

2017-10-03 Thread Kay Schenk
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Fernando Cassia  wrote:

> On 10/3/17, Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:
> > Now what:
> > 1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the licences
> > (GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library) allow us
> to?
> > 2. Drop Windows as a platform, since it's the only affected platform
> (*nix
> > users usually install distro OpenJDK packages so 32 bit OpenJDK will be
> > available for 32 bit AOO). We have no Win64 AOO.
> > 3. Drop 32 bit versions of AOO and add Win64 support.
> > 4. Or drop Java entirely and port our Java code to eg. .NET core, which
> is
> > liberally licensed and private copies of it can be shipped?
> >
> > Damjan
>
> Tempest in a teapot. You do know that Oracle isn't the only provider
> of Java or OpenJDK, right?
>
> Options
> 1. You can buiild your own 32-bit x86 binary based on OpenJDK sources.
> 2. make AOO compile OK on 64 bit thus making AOO a 64-bit Windows app,
> able to use any 64-bit JRE (Oracle JRE, IBM JRE, Azul's Zulu JRE)
> 3. Have you asked Azul Systems if they can provide a 32-bit build?
> 4. Compile the Java code in AOO as native with Java 9's AOT compiler?
> http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/295
>
> Just my $0.02
> FC
>
>
​As a bystander, I'm wondering just how alarming this news is to Apache
OpenOffice.

The builds are using Java 6 or 7, right?​

 I'm still on 32-bit Linux for now but my default OpenJDK is 1.8. I can run
AOO fine with it but must use 1.7 for building.


-- 
--
MzK

"Only the truth will save you now."
 -- Ensei Tankado, "Digital Fortress"


Re: Java 9 32-bit

2017-10-03 Thread Fernando Cassia
On 10/3/17, Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:
> Now what:
> 1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the licences
> (GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library) allow us to?
> 2. Drop Windows as a platform, since it's the only affected platform (*nix
> users usually install distro OpenJDK packages so 32 bit OpenJDK will be
> available for 32 bit AOO). We have no Win64 AOO.
> 3. Drop 32 bit versions of AOO and add Win64 support.
> 4. Or drop Java entirely and port our Java code to eg. .NET core, which is
> liberally licensed and private copies of it can be shipped?
>
> Damjan

Tempest in a teapot. You do know that Oracle isn't the only provider
of Java or OpenJDK, right?

Options
1. You can buiild your own 32-bit x86 binary based on OpenJDK sources.
2. make AOO compile OK on 64 bit thus making AOO a 64-bit Windows app,
able to use any 64-bit JRE (Oracle JRE, IBM JRE, Azul's Zulu JRE)
3. Have you asked Azul Systems if they can provide a 32-bit build?
4. Compile the Java code in AOO as native with Java 9's AOT compiler?
http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/295

Just my $0.02
FC

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Java 9 32-bit

2017-10-03 Thread Matthias Seidel
Am 03.10.2017 um 15:59 schrieb Marcus:
> Am 03.10.2017 um 14:51 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> It seems that Oracle pulled the 32-bit version of Java 9:
>>
>> https://twitter.com/mreinhold/status/912311207935090689
>
> thanks for your finding. I think we have a new topic on our todo list.

However, the 32-bit version is still available through other sites.
Oracle offered them for download but pulled them shortly after the release.

Maybe if the shitstorm is big enough Oracle will think about it, but I
would not make a bet on it.

Matthias

>
> Marcus
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature


Re: Java 9 32-bit

2017-10-03 Thread Damjan Jovanovic
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Damjan Jovanovic  wrote:

> Now what:
> 1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the licences
> (GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library) allow us to?
>

To answer my own question, we can't ship OpenJDK - according to
http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional "Apache projects cannot
distribute any such components within their releases".

We could however download and install an OpenJDK binary distribution at
run-time, as needed and after user confirmation, from something like
https://github.com/ojdkbuild/ojdkbuild, for these cases where Oracle's JDK
is unsupported.


Re: Java 9 32-bit

2017-10-03 Thread Marcus

Am 03.10.2017 um 15:18 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:

Now what:
1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the licences
(GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library) allow us to?


of course this can be an option. But IMHO it's just a life extension. 
Somewhen in the future we need to decide which direction to go.



2. Drop Windows as a platform, since it's the only affected platform (*nix
users usually install distro OpenJDK packages so 32 bit OpenJDK will be
available for 32 bit AOO). We have no Win64 AOO.
3. Drop 32 bit versions of AOO and add Win64 support.


The long term option to go. As the relevance and usage of Windows 32-bit 
versions is also decreasing it's time to change to 64-bit.



4. Or drop Java entirely and port our Java code to eg. .NET core, which is
liberally licensed and private copies of it can be shipped?


Also possible. Microsoft has modified this, so that it can now also work 
on Linux and macOS. However, we need to know that .NET is really the 
same on all 3 platforms. I don't think we want to deal with differences 
between them that have to be incorporated into OpenOffice' code. This 
sounds like if it's too painful.


I would prefer for option 3.

Marcus




On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Matthias Seidel 
wrote:


Hello all,

It seems that Oracle pulled the 32-bit version of Java 9:

https://twitter.com/mreinhold/status/912311207935090689

Matthias



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



Re: Java 9 32-bit

2017-10-03 Thread Matthias Seidel
Option 1, 3, 4 could work. (I would prefer 1  for short term and 3 for
long term)
Option 2 is nonsense.

Either way, I just wanted to inform the list about the fact...

Matthias


Am 03.10.2017 um 15:27 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
> Go for which option?
> Or do you mean option 4 with the "Go" language?
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Matthias Seidel 
> wrote:
>
>> Go for it! ;-)
>>
>>
>> Am 03.10.2017 um 15:18 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
>>> Now what:
>>> 1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the licences
>>> (GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library) allow us
>> to?
>>> 2. Drop Windows as a platform, since it's the only affected platform
>> (*nix
>>> users usually install distro OpenJDK packages so 32 bit OpenJDK will be
>>> available for 32 bit AOO). We have no Win64 AOO.
>>> 3. Drop 32 bit versions of AOO and add Win64 support.
>>> 4. Or drop Java entirely and port our Java code to eg. .NET core, which
>> is
>>> liberally licensed and private copies of it can be shipped?
>>>
>>> Damjan
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Matthias Seidel <
>> matthias.sei...@hamburg.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hello all,

 It seems that Oracle pulled the 32-bit version of Java 9:

 https://twitter.com/mreinhold/status/912311207935090689

 Matthias



>>
>>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature


Re: Java 9 32-bit

2017-10-03 Thread Damjan Jovanovic
Go for which option?
Or do you mean option 4 with the "Go" language?

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Matthias Seidel 
wrote:

> Go for it! ;-)
>
>
> Am 03.10.2017 um 15:18 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
> > Now what:
> > 1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the licences
> > (GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library) allow us
> to?
> > 2. Drop Windows as a platform, since it's the only affected platform
> (*nix
> > users usually install distro OpenJDK packages so 32 bit OpenJDK will be
> > available for 32 bit AOO). We have no Win64 AOO.
> > 3. Drop 32 bit versions of AOO and add Win64 support.
> > 4. Or drop Java entirely and port our Java code to eg. .NET core, which
> is
> > liberally licensed and private copies of it can be shipped?
> >
> > Damjan
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Matthias Seidel <
> matthias.sei...@hamburg.de>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> It seems that Oracle pulled the 32-bit version of Java 9:
> >>
> >> https://twitter.com/mreinhold/status/912311207935090689
> >>
> >> Matthias
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>


Re: Java 9 32-bit

2017-10-03 Thread Matthias Seidel
Go for it! ;-)


Am 03.10.2017 um 15:18 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
> Now what:
> 1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the licences
> (GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library) allow us to?
> 2. Drop Windows as a platform, since it's the only affected platform (*nix
> users usually install distro OpenJDK packages so 32 bit OpenJDK will be
> available for 32 bit AOO). We have no Win64 AOO.
> 3. Drop 32 bit versions of AOO and add Win64 support.
> 4. Or drop Java entirely and port our Java code to eg. .NET core, which is
> liberally licensed and private copies of it can be shipped?
>
> Damjan
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Matthias Seidel 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> It seems that Oracle pulled the 32-bit version of Java 9:
>>
>> https://twitter.com/mreinhold/status/912311207935090689
>>
>> Matthias
>>
>>
>>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature


Re: Java 9 32-bit

2017-10-03 Thread Damjan Jovanovic
Now what:
1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the licences
(GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library) allow us to?
2. Drop Windows as a platform, since it's the only affected platform (*nix
users usually install distro OpenJDK packages so 32 bit OpenJDK will be
available for 32 bit AOO). We have no Win64 AOO.
3. Drop 32 bit versions of AOO and add Win64 support.
4. Or drop Java entirely and port our Java code to eg. .NET core, which is
liberally licensed and private copies of it can be shipped?

Damjan

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Matthias Seidel 
wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> It seems that Oracle pulled the 32-bit version of Java 9:
>
> https://twitter.com/mreinhold/status/912311207935090689
>
> Matthias
>
>
>


Java 9 32-bit

2017-10-03 Thread Matthias Seidel
Hello all,

It seems that Oracle pulled the 32-bit version of Java 9:

https://twitter.com/mreinhold/status/912311207935090689

Matthias




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature