Good idea, but I don't believe you can install Java into a web applet. If you can, let me know and I will start using Java immediately, because that would be freaking sweet (although slow to download).
> Yes. I think I would find that preferable to full enforcement of immoral laws.
No, you would mostly have full enforcement of ALL laws, at least in a place like mine: since most police officers think they are the grand moral authority and anything you do that annoys them (illegal or not) sets them off into a tirade about how they can haul you off to jail on a whim.
So no, that would be the death of freedom (assuming it is still alive) if that were to come to pass.
Hey troll, at least I have a job. Your amazing reading comprehension skills suggest your career opportunities are limited to administering your cock to perverted old men on the street corner. Enjoy your AIDS.
I have no idea. Maybe people who "know people on the inside" get them. Or perhaps their existence is spread by the language creators, but not on "official" documentation.
> The ONLY real problem, is to force the developers to actually use Java 5 features....
Hehe, well ideally, that is true.:)
Unfortunately, even with 6 available, some developers stick to the version that they created their application with originally. A lot of software companies seem to live in a bubble, thinking "as long as it works, it's fine." But they don't always consider that their program could conflict with other software that their clients must use.
I've never used Python, but that seems like a good solution. I imagine it bloats and slows the program a bit, but I believe it's worth it so that the user doesn't have to put up with the crap you mentioned. The incompatibility problem is why I don't use Linux on my home machine, even though I really like it. I like to be able to upgrade my software without wanting to stab myself in the eye. Of course, as this thread shows, I haven't moved away from dependency problems simply by using Windows.:(
Sorry, I fractured my funny bone after my first post today required me to repeatedly rush to clarify every letter I wrote.:)
> Beat them up to explain what it does.
I'm pretty sure it is just a pretty face EXE that runs different EXEs that run javaw with the jar files as arguments... Yes, I know this sounds wrong. No, they are not that great at what they do. We are probably their worst customer from their POV, because I have a tendency to ask a lot of questions like "what in the world possessed you to do that?" and pointing out when something they did was a Very Bad Idea(tm)... which is uncomfortably common.
> Chances are it will respect the env variables you pass into it.
Given their history I doubt it, but it doesn't cost me anything but frustration to ask (our support contract is up to date).:)
> is the app a WAR/EAR file for a web app or is it an applet?
Sorry, I have no idea how to determine WAR/EAR. I had to look them up just to know what the acronyms meant. There are multiple programs involved here. The one I am referring to in this post, mostly, is a collection of JAR files that are installed locally, and are standalone applications. There is one launch EXE, and for each program it launches, there is another EXE in the same folder as a JAR.
For other apps, I just know that we open up a web page and it wants java to be there. How it reacts depends on the program. The most important one of these web apps attempts to install JRE 1.4 if it doesn't already exist (even if 1.3 does exist).
In the course of trying this I have found that that env variable does not exist on at least two of my systems... Is it supposed to be there? One has three different versions of Java 1.3 and the other has Java 1.4.
You don't always need three complete functions. Two of those functions can take the passed parameters and make them work with the third, optimized function. That isn't always possible, but it is ideal.
> > In our case it's mostly because we have no choice. > You always have a choice.
What I mean is that the software we need for our business only runs on Windows. It is cost prohibitive to change to another software package -- about 2-3 million dollars that we don't have, being a nonprofit organization.
Using a launch script is a good idea except that our primary software vendor made their own launch program... and of course that program is NOT written in Java, so I'm SOL on that one. Of course I could write my own launcher I suppose...
Also, something I failed to mention in that exact post you are replying to is that some of the applications are on web pages, so the ideas presented probably would not work for those. However, you did give me an idea: I could probably make a batch file that changes the Java home ENV variable to whichever version the person is about to need. It would be a pain in the @$$ for the end user, and isn't really a "fix", but it would at least allow them to run the programs they need. Now I just need to make sure a regular user has the permission to set env variables... seems unlikely, but it's worth a shot.
No, I still need to use the different JRE versions, so I can't just disable them. If that were the case, I'd uninstall them.:) Plus at least one of the required versions (1.3.1) does not have that tab in its control panel.
What I need is for different applications to use different JRE versions. This also applies to different web pages, which I suspect complicates the issue even more. The full-blown apps have not had any issues between them, as far as i can recall. The issues only crop up when we need Java for a web-based program. One program (GE Healthcare online, used for training and CE) absolutely requires v1.5 or 1.6. But our Time & Attendance (CTR/Kronos WFC, another web-based app) system will fail to function properly if 1.5 or 1.6 is present on a system.
There are other examples, such as a program used to install (Lexi-Comp) software onto a Palm. For some reason, they refuse to make the program work properly using HotSync, and their crappy installer requires Java 1.5+. This same computer needs to use the T&A (heehee) page.
Can you (or anyone else) please expand upon this? Because I am fully prepared to proclaim that I'm a clueless moron if it means I can implement a simple fix to get everyone at work using the software they need without switching computers. However, many attempts with Google and the developers have always ended in frustration.
> Erm, you must be running windows and don't have a sysadmin with a clue. You can run as many versions of JDK in parallel as you want and they will not interfere with each other.
Thanks: I am the sysadmin, and while I'm not the best ever, I am pretty good at what I do. And yes, we run Windows: it is rather unhelpful of you to claim that as part of the problem, since the majority of people use Windows. In our case it's mostly because we have no choice. I have installed multiple versions needed to run the programs and they HAVE broken each other. I have witnessed and experienced it first-hand. No amount of claiming that "it really does work" will change the reality that it does not. Now, I cannot say that this is Sun's fault -- and based on previous experience with some of our software developers, I would not be surprised -- but the fact that it has happened MULTIPLE TIMES with different pieces of software (some are web apps, some desktop) tells me there is undoubtedly an underlying problem.
Also, we are talking about JREs, not JDKs. Perhaps you misunderstood that. Or perhaps it doesn't matter to the point you were trying to make. I don't know.
> If I have a function(foo,bar) and later change the compiler so it only needs function(foo)
I am probably showing my ignorance with this statement, but why does it have to become two different functions? If someone can manage to create their own programming language, they can most certainly understand the concept of optional parameters. Of course I realize that may not always work, and that the way the function... well, functions may be significantly different now... but there has to be a way to make it work. At the very least, if it's an efficiency problem, stop supporting/upgrading the old function, but at least leave the old function in and tell developers that the new method is preferred.
> If the programmer is dumb enough to use some esoteric/ undocumented/ unsupported part of the JVM
If the developer is not supposed to use it, it should not be present at all. Of course I have never implemented my own programming language, but it seems like a good idea... If you start tossing all kinds of crap into your language that should not be used, doesn't that cause bloat? Especially in the case of a language like Java that is (basically*) interpreted.
* I know Java is not technically an interpreted language, with the bytecode stuff and all, but it might as well be, since the bytecode is "interpreted" by a program running on the end user's PC, which the developer has little or no control over.
> > is (mostly) consistent with itself > With itself.
When I see "itself" I consider "Java 1.4.02_09" and "Java 1.4.02_12" to be within the realm of "itself". Yet these two versions (just as an example pair, my argument is not exclusive to just those exact versions) have compatibility problems. Or rather, the developer of the software we use has those problems. But the fact that upgrading by an extremely minor amount (I'd say a 0.0.0.03 version increase is extremely minor) can break an application tells me that there is something wrong with the underlying program.
I am talking about the client here. Having a minimum JRE version is fine, but did the Java developers remove features from the language and not leave and backwards-compatibility hooks in it? That's the only reason I can see why a Java software package would require a version LOWER than "current."
If you write a new version of a programming language you created, and old programs do not work AT ALL, then you have done something wrong. Adding features, improving efficiency, etc is fine (great). Removing functionality does not make sense.
Dealing with specific libraries that usually only matter while creating the program itself (on the developer side) is completely different than requiring the end user of professional software to install one specific version of the client-side environment.
And the point of software is the usage, not the creation. So dealing with issues during creation is the developer's problem. It needs to be usable by the client.
Are you serious? Where I work, we regularly use at least three Java applications, and each one requires a particular version of Java, none of which are the same. One of them requires Java 1.5, while another one will break completely if Java 1.5 is installed. It's a nightmare! And while yes, the version requirements may be the fault of the developers, the fact that it can happen at all is unacceptable.
Slashdot Mirror
Good idea, but I don't believe you can install Java into a web applet. If you can, let me know and I will start using Java immediately, because that would be freaking sweet (although slow to download).
> Yes. I think I would find that preferable to full enforcement of immoral laws.
No, you would mostly have full enforcement of ALL laws, at least in a place like mine: since most police officers think they are the grand moral authority and anything you do that annoys them (illegal or not) sets them off into a tirade about how they can haul you off to jail on a whim.
So no, that would be the death of freedom (assuming it is still alive) if that were to come to pass.
I didn't know you could post to Slashdot from jail, Mr. Reiser.
Hey troll, at least I have a job. Your amazing reading comprehension skills suggest your career opportunities are limited to administering your cock to perverted old men on the street corner. Enjoy your AIDS.
I have no idea. Maybe people who "know people on the inside" get them. Or perhaps their existence is spread by the language creators, but not on "official" documentation.
Oh I do, but Linux libraries were comparably worse as well. Everyone has come a long way since then.
> The ONLY real problem, is to force the developers to actually use Java 5 features....
:)
Hehe, well ideally, that is true.
Unfortunately, even with 6 available, some developers stick to the version that they created their application with originally. A lot of software companies seem to live in a bubble, thinking "as long as it works, it's fine." But they don't always consider that their program could conflict with other software that their clients must use.
I've never used Python, but that seems like a good solution. I imagine it bloats and slows the program a bit, but I believe it's worth it so that the user doesn't have to put up with the crap you mentioned. The incompatibility problem is why I don't use Linux on my home machine, even though I really like it. I like to be able to upgrade my software without wanting to stab myself in the eye. Of course, as this thread shows, I haven't moved away from dependency problems simply by using Windows. :(
> That was mostly a joke.... mostly ;-)
:)
:)
Sorry, I fractured my funny bone after my first post today required me to repeatedly rush to clarify every letter I wrote.
> Beat them up to explain what it does.
I'm pretty sure it is just a pretty face EXE that runs different EXEs that run javaw with the jar files as arguments... Yes, I know this sounds wrong. No, they are not that great at what they do. We are probably their worst customer from their POV, because I have a tendency to ask a lot of questions like "what in the world possessed you to do that?" and pointing out when something they did was a Very Bad Idea(tm)... which is uncomfortably common.
> Chances are it will respect the env variables you pass into it.
Given their history I doubt it, but it doesn't cost me anything but frustration to ask (our support contract is up to date).
> is the app a WAR/EAR file for a web app or is it an applet?
Sorry, I have no idea how to determine WAR/EAR. I had to look them up just to know what the acronyms meant. There are multiple programs involved here. The one I am referring to in this post, mostly, is a collection of JAR files that are installed locally, and are standalone applications. There is one launch EXE, and for each program it launches, there is another EXE in the same folder as a JAR.
For other apps, I just know that we open up a web page and it wants java to be there. How it reacts depends on the program. The most important one of these web apps attempts to install JRE 1.4 if it doesn't already exist (even if 1.3 does exist).
> tried going into a CMD shell and running echo %JAVA_HOME%
:)
That's how I found out it didn't exist
In the course of trying this I have found that that env variable does not exist on at least two of my systems... Is it supposed to be there? One has three different versions of Java 1.3 and the other has Java 1.4.
Is that a variable that can be modified by regular users (we use active directory and our users are not "Power Users")?
You don't always need three complete functions. Two of those functions can take the passed parameters and make them work with the third, optimized function. That isn't always possible, but it is ideal.
> > In our case it's mostly because we have no choice.
> You always have a choice.
What I mean is that the software we need for our business only runs on Windows. It is cost prohibitive to change to another software package -- about 2-3 million dollars that we don't have, being a nonprofit organization.
Using a launch script is a good idea except that our primary software vendor made their own launch program... and of course that program is NOT written in Java, so I'm SOL on that one. Of course I could write my own launcher I suppose...
Also, something I failed to mention in that exact post you are replying to is that some of the applications are on web pages, so the ideas presented probably would not work for those. However, you did give me an idea: I could probably make a batch file that changes the Java home ENV variable to whichever version the person is about to need. It would be a pain in the @$$ for the end user, and isn't really a "fix", but it would at least allow them to run the programs they need. Now I just need to make sure a regular user has the permission to set env variables... seems unlikely, but it's worth a shot.
Thanks.
No, I still need to use the different JRE versions, so I can't just disable them. If that were the case, I'd uninstall them. :) Plus at least one of the required versions (1.3.1) does not have that tab in its control panel.
What I need is for different applications to use different JRE versions. This also applies to different web pages, which I suspect complicates the issue even more. The full-blown apps have not had any issues between them, as far as i can recall. The issues only crop up when we need Java for a web-based program. One program (GE Healthcare online, used for training and CE) absolutely requires v1.5 or 1.6. But our Time & Attendance (CTR/Kronos WFC, another web-based app) system will fail to function properly if 1.5 or 1.6 is present on a system.
There are other examples, such as a program used to install (Lexi-Comp) software onto a Palm. For some reason, they refuse to make the program work properly using HotSync, and their crappy installer requires Java 1.5+. This same computer needs to use the T&A (heehee) page.
Can you (or anyone else) please expand upon this? Because I am fully prepared to proclaim that I'm a clueless moron if it means I can implement a simple fix to get everyone at work using the software they need without switching computers. However, many attempts with Google and the developers have always ended in frustration.
I am talking about Windows here. Linux libraries are a completely different nightmare that I prefer not to deal with (although I have).
> Erm, you must be running windows and don't have a sysadmin with a clue. You can run as many versions of JDK in parallel as you want and they will not interfere with each other.
Thanks: I am the sysadmin, and while I'm not the best ever, I am pretty good at what I do. And yes, we run Windows: it is rather unhelpful of you to claim that as part of the problem, since the majority of people use Windows. In our case it's mostly because we have no choice. I have installed multiple versions needed to run the programs and they HAVE broken each other. I have witnessed and experienced it first-hand. No amount of claiming that "it really does work" will change the reality that it does not. Now, I cannot say that this is Sun's fault -- and based on previous experience with some of our software developers, I would not be surprised -- but the fact that it has happened MULTIPLE TIMES with different pieces of software (some are web apps, some desktop) tells me there is undoubtedly an underlying problem.
Also, we are talking about JREs, not JDKs. Perhaps you misunderstood that. Or perhaps it doesn't matter to the point you were trying to make. I don't know.
> If I have a function(foo,bar) and later change the compiler so it only needs function(foo)
I am probably showing my ignorance with this statement, but why does it have to become two different functions? If someone can manage to create their own programming language, they can most certainly understand the concept of optional parameters. Of course I realize that may not always work, and that the way the function... well, functions may be significantly different now... but there has to be a way to make it work. At the very least, if it's an efficiency problem, stop supporting/upgrading the old function, but at least leave the old function in and tell developers that the new method is preferred.
> If the programmer is dumb enough to use some esoteric/ undocumented/ unsupported part of the JVM
If the developer is not supposed to use it, it should not be present at all. Of course I have never implemented my own programming language, but it seems like a good idea... If you start tossing all kinds of crap into your language that should not be used, doesn't that cause bloat? Especially in the case of a language like Java that is (basically*) interpreted.
* I know Java is not technically an interpreted language, with the bytecode stuff and all, but it might as well be, since the bytecode is "interpreted" by a program running on the end user's PC, which the developer has little or no control over.
> > is (mostly) consistent with itself
> With itself.
When I see "itself" I consider "Java 1.4.02_09" and "Java 1.4.02_12" to be within the realm of "itself". Yet these two versions (just as an example pair, my argument is not exclusive to just those exact versions) have compatibility problems. Or rather, the developer of the software we use has those problems. But the fact that upgrading by an extremely minor amount (I'd say a 0.0.0.03 version increase is extremely minor) can break an application tells me that there is something wrong with the underlying program.
> Why would you say it's unacceptable?
I am talking about the client here. Having a minimum JRE version is fine, but did the Java developers remove features from the language and not leave and backwards-compatibility hooks in it? That's the only reason I can see why a Java software package would require a version LOWER than "current."
If you write a new version of a programming language you created, and old programs do not work AT ALL, then you have done something wrong. Adding features, improving efficiency, etc is fine (great). Removing functionality does not make sense.
Dealing with specific libraries that usually only matter while creating the program itself (on the developer side) is completely different than requiring the end user of professional software to install one specific version of the client-side environment.
And the point of software is the usage, not the creation. So dealing with issues during creation is the developer's problem. It needs to be usable by the client.
> is (mostly) consistent with itself
Are you serious? Where I work, we regularly use at least three Java applications, and each one requires a particular version of Java, none of which are the same. One of them requires Java 1.5, while another one will break completely if Java 1.5 is installed. It's a nightmare! And while yes, the version requirements may be the fault of the developers, the fact that it can happen at all is unacceptable.
That sounds like an "Apple elitism" troll... "I conned someone into paying me far more than I am worth, so why can't you?"