On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 07:50 -0600, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> Another even wilder idea would be to translate the Java bytecode
> to .NET bytecode for the Windows case...
I suspect at this point the external pundits start screaming all at
once ;-) So - I would prefer using python, or native
On 11/03/2010 04:06 PM, Caolán McNamara wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 14:30 +0100, Cedric Bosdonnat wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 12:47 +, Michael Meeks wrote:
Quite; cf. such uncertainty - it probably makes considerable sense to
look into a migration strategy from Java to (insert any
> Rather than clumsily trying to convert Java->.net/mono I would
> rather allow to have people write in those languages in the first place.
Sure. I was dreaming (having nightmares?) of converting compiled Java class
files to .NET assemblies... The source code for them would thus still continue
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 14:30 +0100, Cedric Bosdonnat wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 12:47 +, Michael Meeks wrote:
> > Quite; cf. such uncertainty - it probably makes considerable sense to
> > look into a migration strategy from Java to (insert anything else). Some
> > candidates might be pyt
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:50:08 -0600, "Tor Lillqvist" wrote:
> Another even wilder idea would be to translate the Java bytecode to .NET
> bytecode for the Windows case... There are some tools, more or less
> experimental, for this, aren't there? Would it not be better to just require
> the .NET fr
> What about the existing Java extensions? Quite a lot of people are using
> Java to either writer extensions or use UNO Java bridge from an external
> application.
How hard would it be to do AOT compilation of the Java bytecode of such
extensions (and the needed JRE and OOo/LO glue classes), and
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 12:47 +, Michael Meeks wrote:
> Quite; cf. such uncertainty - it probably makes considerable sense to
> look into a migration strategy from Java to (insert anything else). Some
> candidates might be python for the more scripty pieces (though I hate
> non-typed langua
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 10:29 +, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> Hmm, yeah, that's true. I believe this is due to uncertainty around the
> various clauses in the Redistribution text in the stock Java licence, so
> safest option was not to redistribute it as part of the stock windows
> installer bundle.
On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 01:50 +0200, Cesare Leonardi wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> There's a thing not clear to me and that involved go-oo too: the
> relationship between LibreOffice and Java. Here i'm referring to the
> Windows environment but under Linux/Mac should be the same.
>
> Java isn't provided w
AFAIK, Java is optional and is used to extend core LO functionality.
Are the warnings you get related to Java-based extensions? If yes and you're on
Windows, there's a thread with a suggestion to improve the LibreOffice installer
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2010-October/0006
10 matches
Mail list logo
