Java 9 32-bit

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
17 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Java 9 32-bit

Matthias Seidel
Hello all,

It seems that Oracle pulled the 32-bit version of Java 9:

https://twitter.com/mreinhold/status/912311207935090689

Matthias



smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Java 9 32-bit

Damjan Jovanovic
Now what:
1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the licences
(GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library) allow us to?
2. Drop Windows as a platform, since it's the only affected platform (*nix
users usually install distro OpenJDK packages so 32 bit OpenJDK will be
available for 32 bit AOO). We have no Win64 AOO.
3. Drop 32 bit versions of AOO and add Win64 support.
4. Or drop Java entirely and port our Java code to eg. .NET core, which is
liberally licensed and private copies of it can be shipped?

Damjan

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Matthias Seidel <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> It seems that Oracle pulled the 32-bit version of Java 9:
>
> https://twitter.com/mreinhold/status/912311207935090689
>
> Matthias
>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Java 9 32-bit

Matthias Seidel
Go for it! ;-)


Am 03.10.2017 um 15:18 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:

> Now what:
> 1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the licences
> (GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library) allow us to?
> 2. Drop Windows as a platform, since it's the only affected platform (*nix
> users usually install distro OpenJDK packages so 32 bit OpenJDK will be
> available for 32 bit AOO). We have no Win64 AOO.
> 3. Drop 32 bit versions of AOO and add Win64 support.
> 4. Or drop Java entirely and port our Java code to eg. .NET core, which is
> liberally licensed and private copies of it can be shipped?
>
> Damjan
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Matthias Seidel <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> It seems that Oracle pulled the 32-bit version of Java 9:
>>
>> https://twitter.com/mreinhold/status/912311207935090689
>>
>> Matthias
>>
>>
>>


smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Java 9 32-bit

Damjan Jovanovic
Go for which option?
Or do you mean option 4 with the "Go" language?

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Matthias Seidel <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Go for it! ;-)
>
>
> Am 03.10.2017 um 15:18 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
> > Now what:
> > 1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the licences
> > (GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library) allow us
> to?
> > 2. Drop Windows as a platform, since it's the only affected platform
> (*nix
> > users usually install distro OpenJDK packages so 32 bit OpenJDK will be
> > available for 32 bit AOO). We have no Win64 AOO.
> > 3. Drop 32 bit versions of AOO and add Win64 support.
> > 4. Or drop Java entirely and port our Java code to eg. .NET core, which
> is
> > liberally licensed and private copies of it can be shipped?
> >
> > Damjan
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Matthias Seidel <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> It seems that Oracle pulled the 32-bit version of Java 9:
> >>
> >> https://twitter.com/mreinhold/status/912311207935090689
> >>
> >> Matthias
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Java 9 32-bit

Matthias Seidel
Option 1, 3, 4 could work. (I would prefer 1  for short term and 3 for
long term)
Option 2 is nonsense.

Either way, I just wanted to inform the list about the fact...

Matthias


Am 03.10.2017 um 15:27 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:

> Go for which option?
> Or do you mean option 4 with the "Go" language?
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Matthias Seidel <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Go for it! ;-)
>>
>>
>> Am 03.10.2017 um 15:18 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
>>> Now what:
>>> 1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the licences
>>> (GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library) allow us
>> to?
>>> 2. Drop Windows as a platform, since it's the only affected platform
>> (*nix
>>> users usually install distro OpenJDK packages so 32 bit OpenJDK will be
>>> available for 32 bit AOO). We have no Win64 AOO.
>>> 3. Drop 32 bit versions of AOO and add Win64 support.
>>> 4. Or drop Java entirely and port our Java code to eg. .NET core, which
>> is
>>> liberally licensed and private copies of it can be shipped?
>>>
>>> Damjan
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Matthias Seidel <
>> [hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> It seems that Oracle pulled the 32-bit version of Java 9:
>>>>
>>>> https://twitter.com/mreinhold/status/912311207935090689
>>>>
>>>> Matthias
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>


smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Java 9 32-bit

Marcus (OOo)
In reply to this post by Damjan Jovanovic
Am 03.10.2017 um 15:18 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
> Now what:
> 1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the licences
> (GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library) allow us to?

of course this can be an option. But IMHO it's just a life extension.
Somewhen in the future we need to decide which direction to go.

> 2. Drop Windows as a platform, since it's the only affected platform (*nix
> users usually install distro OpenJDK packages so 32 bit OpenJDK will be
> available for 32 bit AOO). We have no Win64 AOO.
> 3. Drop 32 bit versions of AOO and add Win64 support.

The long term option to go. As the relevance and usage of Windows 32-bit
versions is also decreasing it's time to change to 64-bit.

> 4. Or drop Java entirely and port our Java code to eg. .NET core, which is
> liberally licensed and private copies of it can be shipped?

Also possible. Microsoft has modified this, so that it can now also work
on Linux and macOS. However, we need to know that .NET is really the
same on all 3 platforms. I don't think we want to deal with differences
between them that have to be incorporated into OpenOffice' code. This
sounds like if it's too painful.

I would prefer for option 3.

Marcus



> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Matthias Seidel <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> It seems that Oracle pulled the 32-bit version of Java 9:
>>
>> https://twitter.com/mreinhold/status/912311207935090689
>>
>> Matthias


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Java 9 32-bit

Marcus (OOo)
In reply to this post by Matthias Seidel
Am 03.10.2017 um 14:51 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
> It seems that Oracle pulled the 32-bit version of Java 9:
>
> https://twitter.com/mreinhold/status/912311207935090689

thanks for your finding. I think we have a new topic on our todo list.

Marcus


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Java 9 32-bit

Damjan Jovanovic
In reply to this post by Damjan Jovanovic
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Damjan Jovanovic <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Now what:
> 1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the licences
> (GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library) allow us to?
>

To answer my own question, we can't ship OpenJDK - according to
http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional "Apache projects cannot
distribute any such components within their releases".

We could however download and install an OpenJDK binary distribution at
run-time, as needed and after user confirmation, from something like
https://github.com/ojdkbuild/ojdkbuild, for these cases where Oracle's JDK
is unsupported.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Java 9 32-bit

Matthias Seidel
In reply to this post by Marcus (OOo)
Am 03.10.2017 um 15:59 schrieb Marcus:
> Am 03.10.2017 um 14:51 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> It seems that Oracle pulled the 32-bit version of Java 9:
>>
>> https://twitter.com/mreinhold/status/912311207935090689
>
> thanks for your finding. I think we have a new topic on our todo list.

However, the 32-bit version is still available through other sites.
Oracle offered them for download but pulled them shortly after the release.

Maybe if the shitstorm is big enough Oracle will think about it, but I
would not make a bet on it.

Matthias

>
> Marcus
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>



smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Java 9 32-bit

Fernando Cassia
In reply to this post by Damjan Jovanovic
On 10/3/17, Damjan Jovanovic <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Now what:
> 1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the licences
> (GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library) allow us to?
> 2. Drop Windows as a platform, since it's the only affected platform (*nix
> users usually install distro OpenJDK packages so 32 bit OpenJDK will be
> available for 32 bit AOO). We have no Win64 AOO.
> 3. Drop 32 bit versions of AOO and add Win64 support.
> 4. Or drop Java entirely and port our Java code to eg. .NET core, which is
> liberally licensed and private copies of it can be shipped?
>
> Damjan

Tempest in a teapot. You do know that Oracle isn't the only provider
of Java or OpenJDK, right?

Options
1. You can buiild your own 32-bit x86 binary based on OpenJDK sources.
2. make AOO compile OK on 64 bit thus making AOO a 64-bit Windows app,
able to use any 64-bit JRE (Oracle JRE, IBM JRE, Azul's Zulu JRE)
3. Have you asked Azul Systems if they can provide a 32-bit build?
4. Compile the Java code in AOO as native with Java 9's AOT compiler?
http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/295

Just my $0.02
FC

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Java 9 32-bit

Kay Schenk-2
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Fernando Cassia <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/3/17, Damjan Jovanovic <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Now what:
> > 1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the licences
> > (GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library) allow us
> to?
> > 2. Drop Windows as a platform, since it's the only affected platform
> (*nix
> > users usually install distro OpenJDK packages so 32 bit OpenJDK will be
> > available for 32 bit AOO). We have no Win64 AOO.
> > 3. Drop 32 bit versions of AOO and add Win64 support.
> > 4. Or drop Java entirely and port our Java code to eg. .NET core, which
> is
> > liberally licensed and private copies of it can be shipped?
> >
> > Damjan
>
> Tempest in a teapot. You do know that Oracle isn't the only provider
> of Java or OpenJDK, right?
>
> Options
> 1. You can buiild your own 32-bit x86 binary based on OpenJDK sources.
> 2. make AOO compile OK on 64 bit thus making AOO a 64-bit Windows app,
> able to use any 64-bit JRE (Oracle JRE, IBM JRE, Azul's Zulu JRE)
> 3. Have you asked Azul Systems if they can provide a 32-bit build?
> 4. Compile the Java code in AOO as native with Java 9's AOT compiler?
> http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/295
>
> Just my $0.02
> FC
>
>
​As a bystander, I'm wondering just how alarming this news is to Apache
OpenOffice.

The builds are using Java 6 or 7, right?​

 I'm still on 32-bit Linux for now but my default OpenJDK is 1.8. I can run
AOO fine with it but must use 1.7 for building.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Only the truth will save you now."
                         -- Ensei Tankado, "Digital Fortress"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Java 9 32-bit

Andrea Pescetti-2
In reply to this post by Damjan Jovanovic
Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>> 1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the licences
>> (GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library) allow us to?
> To answer my own question, we can't ship OpenJDK - according to
> http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional "Apache projects cannot
> distribute any such components within their releases".

Well, "we can't" is always simplistic when coming to Apache rules. If
something can't be distributed WITHIN a release (a source release) it
may still be possible to bundle it with the the binary releases, much
like what we do with dictionaries. Of course this needs discussion and
validation (and a lot of patience) but the process can be started if we
see value in it as a temporary fix.

Regards,
   Andrea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Java 9 32-bit

Marcus (OOo)
In reply to this post by Kay Schenk-2
Am 03.10.2017 um 22:26 schrieb Kay Schenk:

> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Fernando Cassia <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 10/3/17, Damjan Jovanovic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Now what:
>>> 1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the licences
>>> (GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library) allow us
>> to?
>>> 2. Drop Windows as a platform, since it's the only affected platform
>> (*nix
>>> users usually install distro OpenJDK packages so 32 bit OpenJDK will be
>>> available for 32 bit AOO). We have no Win64 AOO.
>>> 3. Drop 32 bit versions of AOO and add Win64 support.
>>> 4. Or drop Java entirely and port our Java code to eg. .NET core, which
>> is
>>> liberally licensed and private copies of it can be shipped?
>>>
>>> Damjan
>>
>> Tempest in a teapot. You do know that Oracle isn't the only provider
>> of Java or OpenJDK, right?
>>
>> Options
>> 1. You can buiild your own 32-bit x86 binary based on OpenJDK sources.
>> 2. make AOO compile OK on 64 bit thus making AOO a 64-bit Windows app,
>> able to use any 64-bit JRE (Oracle JRE, IBM JRE, Azul's Zulu JRE)
>> 3. Have you asked Azul Systems if they can provide a 32-bit build?
>> 4. Compile the Java code in AOO as native with Java 9's AOT compiler?
>> http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/295
>>
>> Just my $0.02
>> FC
>>
>>
> ​As a bystander, I'm wondering just how alarming this news is to Apache
> OpenOffice.

IMHO not at all. Java 9 was published just 2 weeks ago. So, it will take
some time until it's the favorite one. Until then 8 is developer's darling.

> The builds are using Java 6 or 7, right?​

With the next larger release (probably 4.2.0) we will use Java 8 which
should last a longer time. Time enough to decide what to do with the
dependency of Java 32-bit.

>   I'm still on 32-bit Linux for now but my default OpenJDK is 1.8. I can run
> AOO fine with it but must use 1.7 for building.

Marcus

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Java 9 32-bit

Peter Kovacs-3
How relevant is Win 32 bit in future?
Shouldn't we offer a Win 64bit in long run?

Why move to C#? I do not see the benefit.
I would rather opt for a clean modern C++ library design with hourglass APIs.
With that we can support all languages people want to use in an extention.
And we reduce complexity on our side.
No license issues whatsoever is also on the boon fact.

All the best
Peter



Am 3. Oktober 2017 23:18:12 MESZ schrieb Marcus <[hidden email]>:

>Am 03.10.2017 um 22:26 schrieb Kay Schenk:
>> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Fernando Cassia <[hidden email]>
>wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/3/17, Damjan Jovanovic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Now what:
>>>> 1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the
>licences
>>>> (GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library) allow
>us
>>> to?
>>>> 2. Drop Windows as a platform, since it's the only affected
>platform
>>> (*nix
>>>> users usually install distro OpenJDK packages so 32 bit OpenJDK
>will be
>>>> available for 32 bit AOO). We have no Win64 AOO.
>>>> 3. Drop 32 bit versions of AOO and add Win64 support.
>>>> 4. Or drop Java entirely and port our Java code to eg. .NET core,
>which
>>> is
>>>> liberally licensed and private copies of it can be shipped?
>>>>
>>>> Damjan
>>>
>>> Tempest in a teapot. You do know that Oracle isn't the only provider
>>> of Java or OpenJDK, right?
>>>
>>> Options
>>> 1. You can buiild your own 32-bit x86 binary based on OpenJDK
>sources.
>>> 2. make AOO compile OK on 64 bit thus making AOO a 64-bit Windows
>app,
>>> able to use any 64-bit JRE (Oracle JRE, IBM JRE, Azul's Zulu JRE)
>>> 3. Have you asked Azul Systems if they can provide a 32-bit build?
>>> 4. Compile the Java code in AOO as native with Java 9's AOT
>compiler?
>>> http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/295
>>>
>>> Just my $0.02
>>> FC
>>>
>>>
>> ​As a bystander, I'm wondering just how alarming this news is to
>Apache
>> OpenOffice.
>
>IMHO not at all. Java 9 was published just 2 weeks ago. So, it will
>take
>some time until it's the favorite one. Until then 8 is developer's
>darling.
>
>> The builds are using Java 6 or 7, right?​
>
>With the next larger release (probably 4.2.0) we will use Java 8 which
>should last a longer time. Time enough to decide what to do with the
>dependency of Java 32-bit.
>
>>   I'm still on 32-bit Linux for now but my default OpenJDK is 1.8. I
>can run
>> AOO fine with it but must use 1.7 for building.
>
>Marcus
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Java 9 32-bit

Peter Kovacs-3
In reply to this post by Marcus (OOo)
Also we could use the java c compiler to build machine code for win32 in future. No license problem if the compiler is part of our build toolset.

Am 3. Oktober 2017 23:18:12 MESZ schrieb Marcus <[hidden email]>:

>Am 03.10.2017 um 22:26 schrieb Kay Schenk:
>> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Fernando Cassia <[hidden email]>
>wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/3/17, Damjan Jovanovic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Now what:
>>>> 1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the
>licences
>>>> (GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library) allow
>us
>>> to?
>>>> 2. Drop Windows as a platform, since it's the only affected
>platform
>>> (*nix
>>>> users usually install distro OpenJDK packages so 32 bit OpenJDK
>will be
>>>> available for 32 bit AOO). We have no Win64 AOO.
>>>> 3. Drop 32 bit versions of AOO and add Win64 support.
>>>> 4. Or drop Java entirely and port our Java code to eg. .NET core,
>which
>>> is
>>>> liberally licensed and private copies of it can be shipped?
>>>>
>>>> Damjan
>>>
>>> Tempest in a teapot. You do know that Oracle isn't the only provider
>>> of Java or OpenJDK, right?
>>>
>>> Options
>>> 1. You can buiild your own 32-bit x86 binary based on OpenJDK
>sources.
>>> 2. make AOO compile OK on 64 bit thus making AOO a 64-bit Windows
>app,
>>> able to use any 64-bit JRE (Oracle JRE, IBM JRE, Azul's Zulu JRE)
>>> 3. Have you asked Azul Systems if they can provide a 32-bit build?
>>> 4. Compile the Java code in AOO as native with Java 9's AOT
>compiler?
>>> http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/295
>>>
>>> Just my $0.02
>>> FC
>>>
>>>
>> ​As a bystander, I'm wondering just how alarming this news is to
>Apache
>> OpenOffice.
>
>IMHO not at all. Java 9 was published just 2 weeks ago. So, it will
>take
>some time until it's the favorite one. Until then 8 is developer's
>darling.
>
>> The builds are using Java 6 or 7, right?​
>
>With the next larger release (probably 4.2.0) we will use Java 8 which
>should last a longer time. Time enough to decide what to do with the
>dependency of Java 32-bit.
>
>>   I'm still on 32-bit Linux for now but my default OpenJDK is 1.8. I
>can run
>> AOO fine with it but must use 1.7 for building.
>
>Marcus
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Java 9 32-bit

Marcus (OOo)
In reply to this post by Peter Kovacs-3
Am 04.10.2017 um 08:54 schrieb Peter kovacs:

are you answering my mail or was this just a random reply?
I'm wondering as I don't see anything new in your mail.

> How relevant is Win 32 bit in future?

0,0 %

> Shouldn't we offer a Win 64bit in long run?

Of course.

> Why move to C#? I do not see the benefit.

Nobody wants to move to C#.

Marcus



> Am 3. Oktober 2017 23:18:12 MESZ schrieb Marcus <[hidden email]>:
>> Am 03.10.2017 um 22:26 schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Fernando Cassia <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/3/17, Damjan Jovanovic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> Now what:
>>>>> 1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the
>> licences
>>>>> (GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library) allow
>> us
>>>> to?
>>>>> 2. Drop Windows as a platform, since it's the only affected
>> platform
>>>> (*nix
>>>>> users usually install distro OpenJDK packages so 32 bit OpenJDK
>> will be
>>>>> available for 32 bit AOO). We have no Win64 AOO.
>>>>> 3. Drop 32 bit versions of AOO and add Win64 support.
>>>>> 4. Or drop Java entirely and port our Java code to eg. .NET core,
>> which
>>>> is
>>>>> liberally licensed and private copies of it can be shipped?
>>>>>
>>>>> Damjan
>>>>
>>>> Tempest in a teapot. You do know that Oracle isn't the only provider
>>>> of Java or OpenJDK, right?
>>>>
>>>> Options
>>>> 1. You can buiild your own 32-bit x86 binary based on OpenJDK
>> sources.
>>>> 2. make AOO compile OK on 64 bit thus making AOO a 64-bit Windows
>> app,
>>>> able to use any 64-bit JRE (Oracle JRE, IBM JRE, Azul's Zulu JRE)
>>>> 3. Have you asked Azul Systems if they can provide a 32-bit build?
>>>> 4. Compile the Java code in AOO as native with Java 9's AOT
>> compiler?
>>>> http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/295
>>>>
>>>> Just my $0.02
>>>> FC
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ​As a bystander, I'm wondering just how alarming this news is to
>> Apache
>>> OpenOffice.
>>
>> IMHO not at all. Java 9 was published just 2 weeks ago. So, it will
>> take
>> some time until it's the favorite one. Until then 8 is developer's
>> darling.
>>
>>> The builds are using Java 6 or 7, right?​
>>
>> With the next larger release (probably 4.2.0) we will use Java 8 which
>> should last a longer time. Time enough to decide what to do with the
>> dependency of Java 32-bit.
>>
>>>    I'm still on 32-bit Linux for now but my default OpenJDK is 1.8. I
>> can run
>>> AOO fine with it but must use 1.7 for building.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Java 9 32-bit

Peter Kovacs-3
Hmm I was not answering you. Should have picked Damian mal.

The suggestion to use .net is to translate to c#. Or I misread. Sorry.

Am 4. Oktober 2017 20:50:06 MESZ schrieb Marcus <[hidden email]>:

>Am 04.10.2017 um 08:54 schrieb Peter kovacs:
>
>are you answering my mail or was this just a random reply?
>I'm wondering as I don't see anything new in your mail.
>
>> How relevant is Win 32 bit in future?
>
>0,0 %
>
>> Shouldn't we offer a Win 64bit in long run?
>
>Of course.
>
>> Why move to C#? I do not see the benefit.
>
>Nobody wants to move to C#.
>
>Marcus
>
>
>
>> Am 3. Oktober 2017 23:18:12 MESZ schrieb Marcus
><[hidden email]>:
>>> Am 03.10.2017 um 22:26 schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>>> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Fernando Cassia <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/3/17, Damjan Jovanovic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> Now what:
>>>>>> 1. Ship our own builds of OpenJDK, in matching bitness. Do the
>>> licences
>>>>>> (GPL for JVM, GPL-with-classpath-exception for class library)
>allow
>>> us
>>>>> to?
>>>>>> 2. Drop Windows as a platform, since it's the only affected
>>> platform
>>>>> (*nix
>>>>>> users usually install distro OpenJDK packages so 32 bit OpenJDK
>>> will be
>>>>>> available for 32 bit AOO). We have no Win64 AOO.
>>>>>> 3. Drop 32 bit versions of AOO and add Win64 support.
>>>>>> 4. Or drop Java entirely and port our Java code to eg. .NET core,
>>> which
>>>>> is
>>>>>> liberally licensed and private copies of it can be shipped?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Damjan
>>>>>
>>>>> Tempest in a teapot. You do know that Oracle isn't the only
>provider
>>>>> of Java or OpenJDK, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Options
>>>>> 1. You can buiild your own 32-bit x86 binary based on OpenJDK
>>> sources.
>>>>> 2. make AOO compile OK on 64 bit thus making AOO a 64-bit Windows
>>> app,
>>>>> able to use any 64-bit JRE (Oracle JRE, IBM JRE, Azul's Zulu JRE)
>>>>> 3. Have you asked Azul Systems if they can provide a 32-bit build?
>>>>> 4. Compile the Java code in AOO as native with Java 9's AOT
>>> compiler?
>>>>> http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/295
>>>>>
>>>>> Just my $0.02
>>>>> FC
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ​As a bystander, I'm wondering just how alarming this news is to
>>> Apache
>>>> OpenOffice.
>>>
>>> IMHO not at all. Java 9 was published just 2 weeks ago. So, it will
>>> take
>>> some time until it's the favorite one. Until then 8 is developer's
>>> darling.
>>>
>>>> The builds are using Java 6 or 7, right?​
>>>
>>> With the next larger release (probably 4.2.0) we will use Java 8
>which
>>> should last a longer time. Time enough to decide what to do with the
>>> dependency of Java 32-bit.
>>>
>>>>    I'm still on 32-bit Linux for now but my default OpenJDK is 1.8.
>I
>>> can run
>>>> AOO fine with it but must use 1.7 for building.
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]