Re: [dev] Java 1.5 now minimal requirement ? (Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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. ??? Who took care of raising it? And who did object? This issue listed in the first mail is one reason I am taking care of it ... Or do I misunderstand what you said? Ciao, Mathias Regards Kay - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Java 1.5 now minimal requirement ? (Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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) - 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]
Re: [dev] Java 1.5 now minimal requirement ? (Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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. Still, I would consider it an error if current OOo versions built for widespread distribution (e.g., Sun Hamburg built DEV300 m23) are built in a way that they do not work with at least Java 1.3.1 at runtime. -Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 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. Still, I would consider it an error if current OOo versions built for widespread distribution (e.g., Sun Hamburg built DEV300 m23) are built in a way that they do not work with at least Java 1.3.1 at runtime. This could be achieved by compiling with the -source and -target switches in effect which allow for creating the class files such, that they can be loaded in earlier releases (like in Java 1.3). ---rony - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [dev] Java 1.5 now minimal requirement ? (Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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 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. Still, I would consider it an error if current OOo versions built for widespread distribution (e.g., Sun Hamburg built DEV300 m23) are built in a way that they do not work with at least Java 1.3.1 at runtime. This could be achieved by compiling with the -source and -target switches in effect which allow for creating the class files such, that they can be loaded in earlier releases (like in Java 1.3). That flags only specify the binary class version IMHO, it does not ensure any API compatability - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Java 1.5 now minimal requirement ? (Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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 originally were on that alias. Still, I would consider it an error if current OOo versions built for widespread distribution (e.g., Sun Hamburg built DEV300 m23) are built in a way that they do not work with at least Java 1.3.1 at runtime. I am currently checking if raising the baseline to 1.5 is fine, this is a prerequisite for what Svante is currently doing. 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 ... Please let's continue discussions on [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Stephan Kay -- Sun Microsystems GmbH Kay Ramme Sachsenfeld 4 Senior Technical Architect 20097 Hamburg Phone: (+49 40) 23646 982 Germany Fax: (+49 40) 23646 550 http://www.sun.com/staroffice mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sun.com/openoffice http://udk.openoffice.org Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht München: HRB 161028 Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Bömer Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Häring - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Java 1.5 now minimal requirement ? (Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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. Flatscher wrote: Hi there, -- Sun Microsystems GmbH Kay Ramme Sachsenfeld 4 Senior Technical Architect 20097 Hamburg Phone: (+49 40) 23646 982 Germany Fax: (+49 40) 23646 550 http://www.sun.com/staroffice mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sun.com/openoffice http://udk.openoffice.org Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht München: HRB 161028 Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Bömer Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Häring - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Java 1.5 now minimal requirement ? (Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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! Is [EMAIL PROTECTED] an OOo mailing list that one should subscribe to to learn as early as possible about Java related changes (configuration, class loader schemes,etc.)? ---rony - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Java 1.5 now minimal requirement ? (Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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 very much for this clarification! Is [EMAIL PROTECTED] an OOo mailing list that one should subscribe to to learn as early as possible about Java related changes (configuration, class loader schemes,etc.)? exactly, full name is: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---rony Hope that helps Kay -- Sun Microsystems GmbH Kay Ramme Sachsenfeld 4 Senior Technical Architect 20097 Hamburg Phone: (+49 40) 23646 982 Germany Fax: (+49 40) 23646 550 http://www.sun.com/staroffice mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sun.com/openoffice http://udk.openoffice.org Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht München: HRB 161028 Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Bömer Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Häring - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Java 1.5 now minimal requirement ? (Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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! Is [EMAIL PROTECTED] an OOo mailing list that one should subscribe to to learn as early as possible about Java related changes (configuration, class loader schemes,etc.)? exactly, full name is: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hope that helps Yes, thank you *very* much (could already subscribe to it)! Regards, ---rony - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] Java 1.5 now minimal requirement ? (Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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) at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass0(Native Method) at java.lang.ClassLoader.defineClass(ClassLoader.java:539) at java.security.SecureClassLoader.defineClass(SecureClassLoader.java:123) at java.net.URLClassLoader.defineClass(URLClassLoader.java:251) at java.net.URLClassLoader.access$100(URLClassLoader.java:55) at java.net.URLClassLoader$1.run(URLClassLoader.java:194) at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method) at java.net.URLClassLoader.findClass(URLClassLoader.java:187) at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:289) at sun.misc.Launcher$AppClassLoader.loadClass(Launcher.java:274) at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:235) at org.apache.bsf.util.EngineUtils.loadClass(EngineUtils.java:385) at org.rexxla.bsf.engines.rexx.RexxAndJava.javaCallBSF(RexxAndJava.java:3191) - cut here - Going back to this list, the last comment on RFC for Java 1.5 was: Mathias Bauer wrote: 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 OOo's Java base line from 1.4 to 1.5 is fine for most people then. AFAIK the current Java baseline is 1.3.1. That is correct, the (still) valid consensus regarding Java can be found here: http://tools.openoffice.org/policies/java_usage.html respectively the background: http://tools.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=jdkmsgNo=90 This document is aged four. Shouldn't we reconsider about this status? I think what we need is a list of complete and 100% free Java implementations on all relevant platforms and the Java version they are compatible to. Do we have one? Or do we have a volunteer creating one? Ciao, Mathias Not having noticed a consensus to have Java 1.5 as the required version for OOo (yet), I just was wondering, whether m23 is mistakingly built with Java 1.5 or whether from now on Java 1.5 would be the minimal version for OOo.And if the latter, what about newer builds of OOo 2.*, would they mandate at least Java 1.5 as well? ---rony
Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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 OOo's Java base line from 1.4 to 1.5 is fine for most people then. AFAIK the current Java baseline is 1.3.1. That is correct, the (still) valid consensus regarding Java can be found here: http://tools.openoffice.org/policies/java_usage.html respectively the background: http://tools.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=jdkmsgNo=90 This document is aged four. Shouldn't we reconsider about this status? I think what we need is a list of complete and 100% free Java implementations on all relevant platforms and the Java version they are compatible to. Do we have one? Or do we have a volunteer creating one? 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]
Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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 is fine for most people then. AFAIK the current Java baseline is 1.3.1. That is correct, the (still) valid consensus regarding Java can be found here: http://tools.openoffice.org/policies/java_usage.html respectively the background: http://tools.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=jdkmsgNo=90 This document is aged four. Shouldn't we reconsider about this status? - Christoph - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] RFC: java 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 current Java baseline is 1.3.1. That is correct, the (still) valid consensus regarding Java can be found here: http://tools.openoffice.org/policies/java_usage.html respectively the background: http://tools.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=jdkmsgNo=90 -Stephan Kay - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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 only thing that will change is that if the user would like to use java-parts of OOo he/she would have to have java-1.5 minimum installed. lg Clemens - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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 1.3.1. -Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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 :-) C. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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]
Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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, 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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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 Charles. Malte. Charles-H. Schulz wrote, On 03/06/08 18:02: 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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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 problem. For the concrete case, this means that any other third-party library we could use will most probably also not run on those platforms. So effectively, you say don't use third-party libraries. So without judging the concrete case, the argueing with possible future ports to platforms without Java is simply not a valid point, IMO. Ciao Frank -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice - - OpenOffice.org Base http://dba.openoffice.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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. Come on. When we ever port OOo to one of those platforms, Java is one of our smallest problem. For the concrete case, this means that any other third-party library we could use will most probably also not run on those platforms. So effectively, you say don't use third-party libraries. So without judging the concrete case, the argueing with possible future ports to platforms without Java is simply not a valid point, IMO. I am personnaly more interested by the aspect related to freedom (as in speech) on this question. Many of them have been sorted, but freedom is also freedom to leave and freedom not to rely on one specific platform, although java can of course be a compelling choice. So the question I have now can be summarized in one word: 'adherence' . Adherence to Java, maintenance, adherence to a VM, breadth of alternatives (not just for java), etc. I am putting myself in perspective of the ToolKit as well. Any thoughts? best, Charles. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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 -- 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]
Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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 to be an even bigger problem. Come on. When we ever port OOo to one of those platforms, Java is one of our smallest problem. For the concrete case, this means that any other third-party library we could use will most probably also not run on those platforms. So effectively, you say don't use third-party libraries. So without judging the concrete case, the argueing with possible future ports to platforms without Java is simply not a valid point, IMO. I am personnaly more interested by the aspect related to freedom (as in speech) on this question. Many of them have been sorted, but freedom is also freedom to leave and freedom not to rely on one specific platform, although java can of course be a compelling choice. So the question I have now can be summarized in one word: 'adherence' . Adherence to Java, maintenance, adherence to a VM, breadth of alternatives (not just for java), etc. I am putting myself in perspective of the ToolKit as well. Any thoughts? Well, as long as a discussion about Java and/or C/++/# is not a religious one, then one may observe that * Java has become ubiquitous, practically all PCs have it installed, i.e., it is usually available on any PC o one of the major reasons seems to be that WWW mandates Java because of numerous Java applets in the field o it has been available (and used) on mobiles for quite a few years now, just look at the Java games there (i.e. ME based), but also regular sized Javas available for Symbian based mobiles + Google's Android is an practically a purely Java based mobile operating system using Apache's opensource Java named Harmony (which in itself is at least at the Java 1.5 level and has already most of Java 1.6 implemented), the first such mobiles are expected to hit the market by the end of this year * Java indeed fulfills the promise to run everywhere; I know from experience as I am a person who has added the ooRexx scripting language to OOo via the OOo Java-based scritping framework; ooRexx itself is written in C++, the scripting interface in Java (using JNI, the Java native interface that allows bridging C/++ with Java). The Java part of that support (which is a generic one, i.e. ooRexx can interface with any Java object, totally independent of OOo) has *never* in the past *eight* years of its existence changed. This means, that in the original support that was created for OS/2 (yup!) and Windows, all the ooRexx examples employing Java objects (including GUI applications originally developed under OS/2!) run *unchanged* on Linux and MacOSX! FWIW, I cannot state the same for C/++ part of the JNI interface as every platform usually has its favored compilers yielding all sort of funny #ifdefs which have been growing over time. * Coming from an academic background there is another interesting aspect to Java: today, it is the most widely used programming language to create applications in the world, and by far the most widely taught computer language (employed even outside of specialized informatic studies) in the world. This means that it is quite probable (and can be witnessed following the OOo e-mail lists) that there are people joining OOo development with Java that otherwise would not stand a chance to help (short of having the necessary C/++ skills). 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. As OOo already deploys Java in a number of areas in addition, I would in any case support the usage of Java for adding new functionality to OOo. Even, if that would mean that Java becomes a mandatory part for any OOo distribution. This just would reflect the reality of the environments under which OOo has been running already and on which Java has been deployed already independent of OOo! Just my 2 cents... ---rony
Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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 that to be a bad idea to introduce it in the first time. Hub - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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 unfavorable. AFAICT java is not required for OOo to run. If by making java a requirement you mean updating the requirement for the jvm to be used by OOo to java 1.5, then it its acceptable. OOo is often strongly criticized by its weight (bloat) and slowliness (bloat). This would just add to it. I always considered that to be a bad idea to introduce it in the first time. Indeed. And while we're there, perhaps there are other tools than Sesame? Extended metadata support is perennial for ODF 1.2 but I hope we can achieve this even without Sesame... Best, Charles. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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 if- this question is framed in that way, I am also unfavorable. AFAICT java is not required for OOo to run. Yep. The party line up to now was to have Java used for non-essential, non-core features. Yes. That's the way it works nowadays, and we shouldn't change that. Requiring Java for an OOo core feature like ODF 1.2 Meta Data support is a no-no, IMHO. Malte. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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 unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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 be able to see that/where extra data is. It IS acceptable for me if Java is required for writing Plugins to manipulate meta data or advanced features. Then I also have no objection to raise the requirement from Java 1.4 to 1.5. Probably it needs some more discussion to define the requirements what exactly must be possible w/o having Java, and how the user can see existing meta data in some way then. I think you have presented the question in a clear way. I don't think Java should be *required* to write plugins though, but that's just my opinion. Java is not required but probably the most comfortable way to develop platform independent extensions. I personally see a growing number of Java extensions and i will support and even promote it wherever i can. Using for example WebServices in extensions opens a huge field for cool extensions ... I would also like to use Java for signatures instead of the mozilla stuff. But that would increase the Java requirements as well and would make it mandatory. Anyway this is a separate discussion and off topic here. Java is available in most cases and of course open source as well. I personally see there no problem but of course that's my personal opinion. Juergen Best, Charles. Malte. Malte Timmermann wrote, On 03/03/08 17:36: 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 if- this question is framed in that way, I am also unfavorable. AFAICT java is not required for OOo to run. Yep. The party line up to now was to have Java used for non-essential, non-core features. Yes. That's the way it works nowadays, and we shouldn't change that. Requiring Java for an OOo core feature like ODF 1.2 Meta Data support is a no-no, IMHO. Malte. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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 could implement the stuff also. ;-) What about using raptor? http://librdf.org/raptor/ and rasqal? http://librdf.org/rasqal/ Hub - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] RFC: java 1.5
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. Of course somebody else could implement the stuff also. ;-) What about using raptor? http://librdf.org/raptor/ and rasqal? http://librdf.org/rasqal/ Thanks, we will have a look. Perhaps I should explain why we chose Sesame in the first place. Java saves a lot of work wrt. porting. The growing number of OOo platforms and C++ compilers really can become a problem, especially if you try to use an external library. So if we chose a C(++) library, it should be one that willingly supports Windows, Unix and Mac and also is 64 Bit enabled. And it should be something that has some history as well as some future. Sesame is a library that is successfully used in projects dealing with meta data and beyond. It's a link to the semantic Web and - as we think - has a bright future. I also hope that the real free [TM] Java will be available in a not so distant future, perhaps when OOo 3.0 is due. And rumours are that this is very probable. So IMHO Java should become a valid option for all components that are loaded on demand only and that are not necessary for everyday work. We are taking the comments in this thread seriously (why should we have asked otherwise? ;-)), please also consider our motives thoroughly also. What currently is not covered by the replies: does anybody know whether some of the Java replacements (gcj etc.) is compatible to Java 1.5? Best regards, 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]
