On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 20:31:02 +0100, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:45:17 +0100, Christian Lohmaier wrote:would anyone scream if we defaulted configure to --without-java ?I would.I would not.I hope not for the wrong reasons.
I hope these are not wrong reasons: - Because I dislike to rely on runtimes that we cannot redistribute on all platforms due to legal restrictions/uncertainties (or can we include the JRE on Windows now?) - Because I dislike to have to install a 65MB runtime on top of a 370MB application, to get an html export filter? (OK, breaking Base is a bummer). With ant, Java comes at 81MB here. - Because I dislike to add yet another build system (ant) on top of dmake and gmake? - Because I think that we should include and focus on as few runtimes as possible? That can be starbasic, vba, python, java, lua or whatnot, but not many of them. - Because I dislike a runtime whose patent grant explicitely does not allow to implement only a subset of the language, preventing us to just ship the parts we need? The portable people will not be happy. - Because I dislike a runtime whose past and future development is very tightly connected to the wills and wishes of a single commercial entity? LibO of all applications should know how that helps speedy development and wide-ranging outside contributions. - Because disabling by default will increase the Leidensdruck to actually implement features that people want in another language. - Being asked whether I would scream if it were disabled in developer builds, I wouldn't scream as I don't use any of the functionality that Java provides to LibO. Fair enough? You might agree with some of the above points or not, and you might give them a different weight than I do, but they are not wrong in my book. Sebastian
Attachment:
pgpW7dJqkXmt0.pgp
Description: PGP signature