Re: LO removing Java, why would they want to? (Re: [api-dev] Java-Midi not working on Mac?

On 2010-12-23 17:30, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
> On 22.12.2010 19:13, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> On 12/22/10 6:03 PM, Martin Dobiasch wrote:
>>
> ... cut ...
>>> Its installed as I've tested some other code on that Mac using the
>>> Midi API
>>> of Sun-Java. For example the same extension works for NeoOffice.
>>> Do you know where in the code I can find the java implementation? Maybe I
>>> can dig into it and compare Libre/Open-Office with NeoOffice
>>>
>> The UI of NeoOffice is completely Java based i assume they run native 64
>> bit. Anyway you can't simply compare NeoOffice with OpenOffice.org here.
>>
>> Don't expect a fix form LibO they work more in the direction to remove
>> Java completely ;-)
>>
> Why would they want to cripple OOo that badly ?
>
> Do you happen to know the rationale by any chance?
> Maybe the question rephrased to make it more on-track: would there be a
> problem with Java in OOo, such that removing Java would solve a problem?
> And if so, what would it be?

Most of OOo is written in C++ so it won't be badly crippled if Java is 
removed from the product. I have used OOo without Java on a machine and 
almost all of OOo works just fine without Java.

As far as I can understand LibreOffice is just trying to minimize the 
_dependency_ on Java. Developers will still be able to write extensions 
in Java but the core (of LibreOffice) won't ideally require a Java 
runtime anymore. As for the reasons: It would potentially minimize 
memory usage and some are probably concerned about the Oracle <> Google 
debacle:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02492.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02612.html

Cheers
-- Jan Holst Jensen