On 2010-11-04 1:06 AM, JustFillBug wrote:
Then start porting all the java extensions to python extensions before
talking about removing java dependency. Even if the task half complete,
some features can still be benefit by not loading the JVM.
?? I think you misunderstand...
What is being
Hey,
Am 03.11.2010 09:16, schrieb shundr...@gmail.com:
+4 on making Java optional. Personally, I prefer Python for writing
extensions to programs as it usually results in smaller code and less
legal uncertainty. Do we / Can we have the option of making LibO
extensions in Python?
Yes, it is
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 01:08:46 +0100, Christian Lohmaier
lohmaier+ooofut...@googlemail.com wrote:
And I fully agree - just dropping java just for the sake of it is a
very, very bad idea.
Right, but being able to build with --disable-java (which doesn't work
at the moment) should be a worthwhile
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 09:54 +0100, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 01:08:46 +0100, Christian Lohmaier
lohmaier+ooofut...@googlemail.com wrote:
And I fully agree - just dropping java just for the sake of it is a
very, very bad idea.
Right, but being able to build with
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 09:27 +, Ian wrote:
Maybe we should convert the whole thing to Java :-)
Lol ;-) it seems the number of platforms with a compliant JVM is
shrinking as we watch, making a bet on that technology in the current
world seems crazy.
At least then it would run on any
+5 too.
What about supporting more languages for extensions instead? Lua seems
interesting, there are other languages that couldbe supported too.
I think LibO should be completely functional with all the features
without the use of heavy dependencies like JVM.
Also I think LibO should
On 2010-11-03, Thomas Krumbein thomas.krumb...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Am 03.11.2010 09:16, schrieb shundr...@gmail.com:
+4 on making Java optional. Personally, I prefer Python for writing
extensions to programs as it usually results in smaller code and less
legal uncertainty. Do we /
Le 2010-11-02 11:40, Miguel Angel Frías Bonfil a écrit :
According to me, Libre Office is developed primary on C++ with GTK, just the
extensions are on Java.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:36 AM, T. J. Brumfieldenderand...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm an user, and not a developer. So perhaps this is a silly
Le 2010-11-02 15:14, Frank Esposito a écrit :
+1 for getting rid of java.
+2 for getting rid of java.
Me too.
--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive:
2010/11/2 Marc Paré m...@marcpare.com
Le 2010-11-02 15:14, Frank Esposito a écrit :
+1 for getting rid of java.
+2 for getting rid of java.
Me too.
Me three.
--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to
discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org
Posting
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 15:32 -0500, T. J. Brumfield wrote:
Can we get a list of all the components that require Java that would need to
be reimplemented?
To start a list we could add:
+ XSL transformations (an easy hack to replace by libxsl)
+ Base HSQLDB backend
+ Base report builder
I think there is a difference between removing Java as a dependency needed
for out-of-the-box features, and blocking people from extending the
application with Java extensions. I think keeping the Java UNO bridge does
make sense, but users shouldn't need to fire up a JVM for basic/common
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/03/2010 12:08 AM, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
+ Base HSQLDB backend
That would mean: ship a different database with by default,
SQLite could easily be added.
would still need that backend otherwise you'd introduce a major
13 matches
Mail list logo
