Kay Schenk wrote:
On 05/28/2010 01:12 PM, Marcus Lange wrote:
Kay Schenk wrote:
Hello Kay,
OK, I am still looking at the proposal to include the JRE checkbox on
the download button, and I would like to again bring up an issue I
brought up well almost a yr ago now.
* why do we *by default* include a JRE? I still would argue this is NOT
a good idea or necessary for the most part
I was told that the installer needs Java to work, at least on Unix.
OK, I see what you're saying...but what I'm suggesting is that we try to
see if the user already has Java, and if not...lead them to it and NOT
provide it. Really, I think bundled JREs were quite popular at one time,
but I don't think they are now. Applications I've installed that need
JRE's to install (Oracle's DB products are a good example), attempt to
find a JRE and use it...see more below.
is there a possibility to see if the Browser has a JRE plugin installed
and if it's the needed min version? If yes, then it could be save to
assume that a suitable JRE is already available.
This would *significantly* simplify our download pack maintenance if we
simply didn't provide bundles with the JRE.
* ok, we, by default include a JRE but well, where do we tell them which
version it is. Shouldn't this be in the "Release Notes"?
We try to include alawys the latest that is available. But is there a
need to tell the enduser which JRE version is used? IMHO OOo is able to
to use any of the 1.6 series.
However, the CWS that updates to the most recent JRE is listed in the
Release Notes (depends on the milestone). But there is no extra hint
that shows the version which of course can be added at the top.
* I really think it would be better to check for some kind of JRE
already installed and "alert" the user that we don't *think* have it and
they should install it for "full" functionality if they don't have it.
This would mean a (maybe complete) rebuild of the installer which is not
planned currently.
And, some details on what will happen if they don't have it are
explained on this page:
(see http://download.openoffice.org/common/java.html -- and this full
functionality is NOT explained)
but not all.
Yes, we could try to make the list complete.
I had been working on the java detection part a while back with mixed
results. But, at the worst, the process seemed to fail on the false
positive side (had JRE but not detected) rather than the other way
around. I know the additional JRE probably doesn't take up a lot of room
really, but it's a question of security and maintenance as far as I'm
concerned.
Thoughts/comments?
I can probably get the new idea to work...but...I'm still not convinced
this is really the best approach. And, I think it would far better to
spell out what the consequences will be is you don't have a JRE.
This was already tried in the past. Maybe you could take this to release
meeting?
And? and, I don't know how to "take this to release meeting". Help! and
thanks for your reply.
OK, I can try it and will let you know. But first I'll proof my
assumtions about the functionality that needs Java.
Have a nice weekend
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
