Hi Mathias,
Mathias Bauer wrote:
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg wrote:
IMHO the only reason that 1.3.1 still is the baseline is that nobody
took care of raising it. And by now nobody has raised any objections
Well, both is not true.
Please go back to the beginning of this thread.
???
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg wrote:
IMHO the only reason that 1.3.1 still is the baseline is that nobody
took care of raising it. And by now nobody has raised any objections
Well, both is not true.
Please go back to the beginning of this thread.
Ciao,
Mathias
--
Mathias Bauer (mba) -
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg wrote:
Hi Rony,
I did start the discussions regarding Java version, OpenJDK, baseline
etc. on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sorry for not announcing it here. Reason for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is, that all stakeholders from the last agreement originally
were on that alias.
Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg wrote:
Hi Rony,
I did start the discussions regarding Java version, OpenJDK, baseline
etc. on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sorry for not announcing it here. Reason for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is, that all stakeholders from the last agreement
From: Rony G. Flatscher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 10:16
To: dev@openoffice.org
Subject: Re: [dev] Java 1.5 now minimal requirement ? (Re: [dev] RFC:
java
1.5
Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg wrote:
Hi Rony,
I did start
Stephan,
Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg wrote:
Hi Rony,
I did start the discussions regarding Java version, OpenJDK, baseline
etc. on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sorry for not announcing it here. Reason for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is, that all stakeholders from the last agreement
Hi Rony,
I did start the discussions regarding Java version, OpenJDK, baseline
etc. on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sorry for not announcing it here. Reason for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is, that all stakeholders from the last agreement originally
were on that alias.
Regards
Kay
Rony G.
Hi Kay,
I did start the discussions regarding Java version, OpenJDK, baseline
etc. on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sorry for not announcing it here. Reason for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is, that all stakeholders from the last agreement originally
were on that alias.
Thank you very much for this clarification!
Rony,
Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
Hi Kay,
I did start the discussions regarding Java version, OpenJDK, baseline
etc. on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sorry for not announcing it here. Reason for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is, that all stakeholders from the last agreement originally
were on that alias.
Thank you
Hi Kay,
I did start the discussions regarding Java version, OpenJDK,
baseline etc. on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sorry for not announcing it here. Reason
for [EMAIL PROTECTED] is, that all stakeholders from the last agreement
originally were on that alias.
Thank you very much for this clarification!
Hi there,
just noticed that running DEV300/m23 with Java 1.4 does not work anymore:
- cut here -
E:\rony\dev\bsf\src\bintestOOo.rex
Exception in thread main java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError:
com/sun/star/comp/helper/Bootstrap (Unsupported major.minor version 49.0)
Hi all,
Christoph Neumann wrote:
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg wrote:
Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Malte Timmermann wrote:
My point of view:
Most people agree that OOo mustn't loose (meta) data when Java is not
available, but plug ins for working with meta data can rely on Java.
Changing
Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg wrote:
Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Malte Timmermann wrote:
My point of view:
Most people agree that OOo mustn't loose (meta) data when Java is not
available, but plug ins for working with meta data can rely on Java.
Changing OOo's Java base line from 1.4 to 1.5
Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Malte Timmermann wrote:
My point of view:
Most people agree that OOo mustn't loose (meta) data when Java is not
available, but plug ins for working with meta data can rely on Java.
Changing OOo's Java base line from 1.4 to 1.5 is fine for most people
then.
AFAIK the
what are your opinions on making java 1.5 a requirement for OOo 3.0?
I think in general its a good idea - it also will guarantee that OOo
users that will install plugins written in java will also most likely
will have java-1.5 installed.
Because the metadata thing is something optional, the
Malte Timmermann wrote:
My point of view:
Most people agree that OOo mustn't loose (meta) data when Java is not
available, but plug ins for working with meta data can rely on Java.
Changing OOo's Java base line from 1.4 to 1.5 is fine for most people then.
AFAIK the current Java baseline is
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.
Hi,
well, I was wondering where we were standing on this issue..
Best,
Charles.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My point of view:
Most people agree that OOo mustn't loose (meta) data when Java is not
available, but plug ins for working with meta data can rely on Java.
Changing OOo's Java base line from 1.4 to 1.5 is fine for most people then.
Malte.
Charles-H. Schulz wrote, On 03/06/08 18:02:
Hi,
Hi,
Le 6 mars 08 à 18:09, Malte Timmermann a écrit :
My point of view:
Most people agree that OOo mustn't loose (meta) data when Java is not
available, but plug ins for working with meta data can rely on Java.
Changing OOo's Java base line from 1.4 to 1.5 is fine for most
people then.
+1
Hi Hubert,
I don't know if you have noticed, but they are been several request from
people to have OOo ported to embedded devices like Maemo and iPhone, for
which Java is likely to be an even bigger problem.
Come on. When we ever port OOo to one of those platforms, Java is one of
our smallest
Hi,
Le 4 mars 08 à 15:23, Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany a
écrit :
Hi Hubert,
I don't know if you have noticed, but they are been several request
from
people to have OOo ported to embedded devices like Maemo and
iPhone, for
which Java is likely to be an even bigger problem.
Hubert Figuiere wrote:
Again, making Java required for core components bring unnecessary bloat.
RDFa and meta text field will be handled by C++ code in xmloff anyway.
We are talking about RDF-XML only. And I reiterate my point that RDF-XML
is *not* core functionality of OOo.
Ciao,
Mathias
--
Hi there,
Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Le 4 mars 08 à 15:23, Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany a
écrit :
Hi Hubert,
I don't know if you have noticed, but they are been several request
from
people to have OOo ported to embedded devices like Maemo and iPhone,
for
which Java is likely
On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 15:37 +0100, Michael Stahl wrote:
what are your opinions on making java 1.5 a requirement for OOo 3.0?
Unfavorable.
(this is a personal opinion)
OOo is often strongly criticized by its weight (bloat) and slowliness
(bloat). This would just add to it. I always considered
Hi,
Le 3 mars 08 à 15:59, Hubert Figuiere a écrit :
On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 15:37 +0100, Michael Stahl wrote:
what are your opinions on making java 1.5 a requirement for OOo 3.0?
Unfavorable.
(this is a personal opinion)
If -and only if- this question is framed in that way, I am also
Thorsten Behrens wrote, On 03/03/08 17:21:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 04:08:16PM +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 15:37 +0100, Michael Stahl wrote:
what are your opinions on making java 1.5 a requirement for OOo 3.0?
Unfavorable.
(this is a personal opinion)
If -and only
On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 15:37 +0100, Michael Stahl wrote:
what are your opinions on making java 1.5 a requirement for OOo 3.0?
Heck no way!
--
Kohei Yoshida - OpenOffice.org Engineer - Novell, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To
Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Hi,
Le 3 mars 08 à 17:57, Malte Timmermann a écrit :
Seems we have to distinguish here a little bit:
It is NOT acceptable for me if I (silently) loose the meta data when not
having Java. Data must be kept when loading/manipulating/storing the
doc, and the user should
On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 18:24 +0100, Mathias Bauer wrote:
In case anyone came up with a useful, professional and maintained
alternative that is guaranteed to run at least on the four main
platforms we could have a look on it. Without that I'd prefer to
utilize
Sesame. Of course somebody else
Hubert Figuiere wrote:
On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 18:24 +0100, Mathias Bauer wrote:
In case anyone came up with a useful, professional and maintained
alternative that is guaranteed to run at least on the four main
platforms we could have a look on it. Without that I'd prefer to
utilize
Sesame.
31 matches
Mail list logo
