On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Marcus Lange <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. yes, there is definitely this possibility from what I've been reading. and from what I've done... > > 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. > great! thanks... > > Have a nice weekend you too! > > > Marcus > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- "Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea." ~ Robert A. Heinlein
