Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency
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 discussed - and what I support - is removing the *dependency* - meaning, the dependency of certain *native* OOo/LibO functions (wizards being one) on java. Java support *for extensions* would remain intact. -- Best regards, Charles -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency
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 still possible to write Extensions in Python :-) That is no problem. Regards Thomas -- ## Marketing deutschsprachiges Projekt ## http://de.libreOffice.org - www.LibreOffice.org ## Vorstand OpenOffice.org Deutschland e.V. ## Mitglieder willkommen: www.OOoDeV.org -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency
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 goal in itself. And if we can replace a few wizards with C++ equivalents, that wouldn't hurt either... Sebastian -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency
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 --disable-java (which doesn't work at the moment) should be a worthwhile goal in itself. And if we can replace a few wizards with C++ equivalents, that wouldn't hurt either... Maybe we should convert the whole thing to Java :-) At least then it would run on any platform with a JVM eg cell phone technology as it moves up into the netbook and laptop spaces. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications A new approach to assessment for learning www.theINGOTs.org - 01827 305940 You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency
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 platform with a JVM eg cell phone Sure any cell-phone with a vast amount of RAM, and a CPU twice as fast as those we have currently in desktops might give reasonable performance. I've seen OO.o running quite nicely on small ARM devices as native code; that would be my approach to mobile. And Sebastian is right - it would be a great goal to be able to build, and (for the most part) run without requiring Java - which is a distribution, and performance nightmare. While, of course, retaining the ability to write and distribute extensions in Java (where its cross-platform-ness makes this rather nice). But the real question is: who is eager to hack on --disable-java for the build ? :-) it should just be a matter of typing, and would help us attract new developers that don't have that fragile pre-requisite around. HTH, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency
+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 concentrate on being a lot more resource efficient without losing functionalities. This way slower machines will be able to run it like netbooks, mobile devices and specially those using ARM. Regards. On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 8:16 AM, shundr...@gmail.com shundr...@gmail.com wrote: +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? -Thiago On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 6:19 AM, jonathon toki.kant...@gmail.com wrote: -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 incompatibility with previous versions. Doesn't Base have its own independent database engine. Something that is not part of OOo/LibO? If so, then a connector for it would be all that is required to retain the ability to use databases created for it. I don't really see a chance for base unless you want to duplicate base. Base as the front end could be rewritten. (Yes, I personally do like java, and I'd not create a code-heavy extension in any other language without a good reason) Keep the ability for extensions to be written in Java. jonathon -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkzQ4toACgkQaC1raifmCuGH8ACeJIUHtBv5gUswkAkv/Z8Lmvam TpUAnijSa79TisTGN1if8p8aLoVza3AS =obwl -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived *** -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived *** -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
[tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency
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 / Can we have the option of making LibO extensions in Python? Yes, it is still possible to write Extensions in Python :-) That is no problem. 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. Maybe create a EasyHack item for porting java extension to python extension. Porting is more like code cleanup except more typing... -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
[tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency
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 question. From a user's perspective, it always seemed like the Java portions of OOo were shoehorned in. Starting a JVM eats up unneccessary memory and takes time. One of the most common complaints of OOo is that it is a bloated app that is slow and takes up too many resources. I assumed that Sun kept the Java portions of OOo in since they liked to push Java. In the age of netbooks, tablets and mobile computing, trimming the fat becomes more important. Would it be possible to remove the Java portions of LibreOffice and reimplement them without the need to fire up a JVM? Is there a technical advantage of running the wizards and such in Java that I'm not aware of? Thanks! -- T. J. Brumfield I'm questioning my education Rewind and what does it show? Could be, the truth it becomes you I'm a seed, wondering why it grows -- Pearl Jam, Education -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived *** Not only that, considering that Oracle is now in litigation over the use of Java, many are taking a closer look at the Java implementations and wondering they should keep Java at all in their code, this even if they are not in the wrong, Marc -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
[tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency
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: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency
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 guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived *** -- Q: Why is this email five sentences or less? A: http://five.sentenc.es -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency
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 (using Pentaho IIRC) + Impress HTML export wizards + Possibly other wizards in Writer and Impress + Misc UNO extensions With a list it would be easier to determine if it is feasible to replace those components. Removing Java completely is a No-go for me as this would prevent developers to write extensions and automation in Java. There are currently no other quick and simple way to extend OOo / LO for people who don't really care about the internals. Removing all Java dependencies from LO (and then removing the Java UNO bridge) would mean that we will exclude: * Java extensions developers users * Java external apps using LO The JVM isn't started unless some Java code needs to be run... I would go for removing as much as possible (mostly the XSLT and Base things) but keep it around for the UNO bridge: this would help us gain on performance. -- Cédric Bosdonnat LibreOffice hacker http://documentfoundation.org OOo Eclipse Integration developer http://cedric.bosdonnat.free.fr -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency
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 functionality out-of-the-box. On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Cedric Bosdonnat cedric.bosdonnat@free.fr wrote: snip Removing Java completely is a No-go for me as this would prevent developers to write extensions and automation in Java. There are currently no other quick and simple way to extend OOo / LO for people who don't really care about the internals. Removing all Java dependencies from LO (and then removing the Java UNO bridge) would mean that we will exclude: * Java extensions developers users * Java external apps using LO snip -- Cédric Bosdonnat LibreOffice hacker http://documentfoundation.org OOo Eclipse Integration developer http://cedric.bosdonnat.free.fr -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency
-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 incompatibility with previous versions. Doesn't Base have its own independent database engine. Something that is not part of OOo/LibO? If so, then a connector for it would be all that is required to retain the ability to use databases created for it. I don't really see a chance for base unless you want to duplicate base. Base as the front end could be rewritten. (Yes, I personally do like java, and I'd not create a code-heavy extension in any other language without a good reason) Keep the ability for extensions to be written in Java. jonathon -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkzQ4toACgkQaC1raifmCuGH8ACeJIUHtBv5gUswkAkv/Z8Lmvam TpUAnijSa79TisTGN1if8p8aLoVza3AS =obwl -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
