Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Java dependency

Hi Cedric, *

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Cedric Bosdonnat
<cedric.bosdonnat.ooo@free.fr> wrote:
> 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:
> [...]
>  + Base HSQLDB backend

That would mean: ship a different database with by default, but you
would still need that backend otherwise you'd introduce a major
incompatibility with previous versions.

That list is missing
 + (free) search in Help (uses lucene)

And I fully agree - just dropping java just for the sake of it is a
very, very bad idea.

> The JVM isn't started unless some Java code needs to be run...

Exactly (and that reminds me of a annoyance in OOo builds, that if you
don't have a JRE configured, but access features that would require
java, you don't only get one dialog stating you need java for that
functionality, but it can cause tens of those (e.g. with macro-related
stuff)

> I would
> go for removing as much as possible (mostly the XSLT and Base things)

I don't really see a chance for base unless you want to duplicate base.

But honestly: Nowadays java isn't that ressource-hog it once was, it
loads much faster (and of course once it is loaded you don't really
notice a difference).

(Yes, I personally do like java, and I'd not create a code-heavy
extension in any other language without a good reason)

ciao
Christian

--
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 ***