Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2010 Archives by date, by thread · List index

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.ooo@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+help@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 ***

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.