On Jul 17, 2012, at 12:15 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > On 7/16/12 11:53 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: >> Re this thread: http://markmail.org/message/uzs5bu3r5oby2fza >> >> I did indeed remove the download link to Java entirely. >> >> Why? Well there are at least 2 versions of Java which may be of interest to >> our user base -- >> Oracle Java. and OpenJDK. >> >> Given the discussion in the thread referenced above, our other page with >> information on java, >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/java.html >> >> does need some changes. >> >> Linux >> As far as I know, there appear to be NO issues with either Oracle Java 7 or >> OpenJDK with Linux 32 bit. I can't find much on our lists about Linux 64 >> bit and/or java 7 64 bit. >> >> Windows >> OK, some reports about problems with 64 bit Oracle Java and AOO 3.4. After >> reviewing the bug reports, the jury is still out on if this is the fault of >> an extension or not. So, we should make folsk aware that there MAY be >> problems with 64 bit Windows and 64 bit Java 7. Oddly, the same problems >> don't seem to surface with the 32 bit Java 7 under Windows. >> >> Mac OS X >> Currently, Apple is still/only distributing java 1.6, so no red flags here >> that I could fine. >> OpenJDK 7 is also available for Mac OS X. I can't find any reporting from >> users who might have this combination. >> At any rate, no reported issues with Mac and Oracle java 1.6 except for >> initial setup issues -- can't find the JRE. >> >> So, I propose we make changes to: >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/download/common/java.html >> >> specifically mentioning the Win 64 bit with Oracle 7 Java 64 bit problems. >> >> Additionally, we could supply links to both the Oracle Java site -- >> http://java.com/en/download/index.jsp >> and the OpenJDK site -- http://openjdk.java.net/ >> >> Unless there are any objections, I could go ahead and make these changes by >> the end of this week, Friday. >> > > I agree in general to you and thanks for summarizing this topic. I have > only one point to add, why should we mention potential problems that we > can't reproduce? In this case I would not mention it, it would be > different if we couldn't fix the problem. But we simply can't reproduce it.
Please check the following bugzilla which claims a way to reproduce: (XHTML exports and JDBC connections seem to be the trouble) https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120275 Priority: P3 Bug ID: 120275 Assignee: ooo-iss...@incubator.apache.org Summary: AOO 3.4 requires Java6 on 64bit Windows platforms Severity: normal Issue Type: DEFECT Classification: Code OS: Windows, all Reporter: ville...@t-online.de Hardware: PC Status: UNCONFIRMED Version: AOO 3.4.0 Component: definition Product: api There have been various reports on the user.services.openoffice.org forum that AOO(or LibO) does not play well with Java7(32bit) on Windows(64bit) systems. I could reproduce the problem ("No Java installation found") with a fresh AOO install on a Windows 2008 server and Java7(32). With Java6 I could run XHTML exports and JDBC connections. Regards, Dave > > > Juergen >
