61–70 of 91 posts
On macOS and Windows their various builds are also available over the Homebrew and Scoop package managers: https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/homebrew-openjdk https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop/wiki/Java
And SDK Man, which is fantastic: https://sdkman.io/
Please add an option for JRE in the browser - JRE compiled to JavaScript or WASM (like CheerpJ or TeaVM).
Seems maybe strange to run a JIT on a JIT. There are some smaller JVMs that likely wouldn't need to be that different, but running HotSpot on WASM, particularly in the browser, seems strange. Why not compile your classes to WASM instead?
https://github.com/WebAssembly/gc/blob/master/proposals/gc/O...
It should be noted that AdoptOpenJDK does not run the TCK against these binaries so they can not be called a compatible Java implementation.
If Java is to evolve as an open platform, it needs to break free from the TCK that disallowed Apache Harmony to exist.
We don't need it and an independent TCK could be developed.
I assume this is mostly for windows? All Linux and I assume Mac has openjdk available in the repos. The openjdk project itself also hosts binaries for *Nix
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The JDK requires no installation, and the concept of a "desktop system JRE" is no longer recommended; in fact, a JRE is no longer shipped. The recommended practice is for developers to bundle a custom, minimized version of the runtime with their application (using jlink). End users shouldn't install any Java runtime anymore. > After the bait and switch with the licensing for the original Java distribution The product…
I know desktop system JRE's aren't recommended any more, but there's still plenty of apps out there that require them. I literally ran into this last week. I am glad to hear the toolbar on the JRE is gone, and I'm glad there's a prominent notice on the download pages - but there's effectively no free official standalone JRE for commercial use anymore.
* Download a JRE with an installer from someone else who builds and distributes it; I don't know about certified distributions, but I think Adopt ships something JRE-like.
* Buy support from Oracle (and help fund OpenJDK's development).
* Build a JRE yourself from the JDK and package it with an installer.
I think that's reasonable.
Oracle's OpenJDK binaries are here: http://jdk.java.net/
On macOS and Windows their various builds are also available over the Homebrew and Scoop package managers: https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/homebrew-openjdk https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop/wiki/Java
And SDK Man, which is fantastic: https://sdkman.io/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why are you asking your end-users to manually install your development dependencies, though? If you want to run a legacy desktop Java application (without bundled JRE - and yes, there's still plenty of these apps out there), MacOS will actually do the prompting for you. And it takes you to the commercial JRE download page, which isn't something I'm willing to install. So the only reasonable option I could find as a…
I'd argue that you're doing this all at too low-level - users shouldn't have to see JAR files - they don't know what those are. You should encapsulate the JAR and the JRE in a package.
Java is considered a system-wide framework, even when installed by the user. macOS treats Java applications specially in order to provide them with special macOS-only functionality; for instance, when an application bundle is launched that requires the JRE, the system will open a notification informing the user that a JRE must be installed and provides a helpful link.
There is a further assumption that the version of Java that a user installs will also include a self-updater, ensuring that the user always has the latest version of Java installed to mitigate security issues from using old versions.
The recent modification of Java's licence doesn't seem sufficient impetus to change this behaviour on which all Java applications have depended since Mac OS X first released, one that even continued after Java was deprecated as a built-in installation option.
Oracle's OpenJDK binaries are here: http://jdk.java.net/
This has been my hell trying to navigate for the past year. As a general rule, anyone who can't commit to updating and testing their software to run on the latest JDK ever 6 months should avoid the Oracle OpenJDK binaries like the plague since support for even LTS versions of Java is dropped 6 months after initial release.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd argue that you're doing this all at too low-level - users shouldn't have to see JAR files - they don't know what those are. You should encapsulate the JAR and the JRE in a package.
One should but, as this has never been necessary on macOS, it would be highly unusual. Java is considered a system-wide framework, even when installed by the user. macOS treats Java applications specially in order to provide them with special macOS-only functionality; for instance, when an application bundle is launched that requires the JRE, the system will open a notification informing the user that a JRE must be i…