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

On 2010-12-24 10:57, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
> On 23.12.2010 17:49, Jan Holst Jensen wrote:
>> On 2010-12-23 17:30, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
>>> On 22.12.2010 19:13, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
> That's the point: not all of OOo is written in C++ anymore, there are
> quite important subsystems written in Java.
>
> One premiere example is the scripting subsystem, which makes JavaScript,
> BeanShell, ooRexx and others available to OOo. Removing Java removes all
> these options and renders programs written in these languages useless.
>
> Another premiere example is the Java-API-interface to the entire OOo.
> Removing Java removes the ability to use OOo from Java and to deploy all
> Java applications that use OOo.
>
> Therefore the conclusion, that removing Java from OOo yields OOo to be
> badly crippled.
>

That LibreOffice is going to remove the abillity to create Java 
extensions is the opposite of what I have understood and I believe that 
I tried to convey that. I may be totally wrong - I am not affiliated in 
any way with neither OpenOffice.org nor LibreOffice. I am just trying to 
pass on what I have been able to read from the various mailing lists.

>> 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.
> It removes the ability for Java programmers to use LO and it removes the
> ability to script LO with the scripting languages added since OOo 2.0.
>

Well, if that turns out to be the case then don't use LibreOffice - as 
Konstantin has just remarked. I would certainly place my bets that OOo 
does _not_ remove Java.

>> 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
> I cannot see why this has anything to do with LO.

Well, the links reference a discussion about removing Java dependencies 
from LibreOffice. But you're absolutely right. This doesn't have much to 
do with LibreOffice since this is an OpenOffice.org mailing list ;-). 
Perhaps your concerns about LibreOffice would be better adressed at 
http://www.documentfoundation.org/contribution/#lists ?

Cheers
-- Jan Holst Jensen