On 08/31/2012 02:16 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
Am 08/31/2012 10:55 PM, schrieb Michal Hriň:
Dňa Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:39:13 +0200 Marcus (OOo) <marcus.m...@wtnet.de>
napísal:

Am 08/31/2012 11:58 AM, schrieb Andreas Säger:
Am 31.08.2012 00:01, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
Am 08/30/2012 09:09 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
On 29/08/2012 Andreas Säger wrote:
Then extract some old version of Java6 (<= revision 23), point the
office to it and try again. It's many times faster.

So, to recap: the best version of Java we could mention as a
workaround
(after saying that Java 7 is supported and more secure, of course) is
"jre-6u23-windows-i586.exe" as found on
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javasebusiness/downloads/java-archive-downloads-javase6-419409.html#jre-6u23-oth-JPR





right?

But then we should write a bit more text with another paragraph to
point
explicitely to this specific version when the user needs it. Then the
users can choose themselves:

a) The most recent JRE 6 if they look for security.
b) JRE 6u23 if they need the AOO Base compatibility.

That one is older than the versions that both I (6.32) and Marcus
(6.x
current) had put on that page, but since people will go to that page
expecting to find a workaround I'd prefer to mention a version that
can
be a workaround for multiple issues (Java not found, Java operations
slow in Base and so on). Andreas in
http://markmail.org/message/w6x6e4dlzgwtfyd7 mentions that 6.22
works,
but if 6.23 is fine too I'd list the newer one.

+1

So, when this is our consensus I will update the webpage on the
weekend.

Marcus


Hi,

Please bear with me. I created some Oracle account to access their
binary attic and went throug a testing parcour on my 32 bit system
where
I found out that _something_ must have changed between OOo 3.3 and
AOO 3.4:

JRE version Linux i586 (Ubuntu 10.4, AOO 3.4)
6.0.22 good /which is what I used to use with OOo 3.3
6.0.23 good /don't know about OOo 3.3
6.0.24 good /used to be bad with OOo 3.3
6.0.24(open-jdk) good /used to be bad with OOo 3.3
6.0.35(latest) good /used to be bad with OOo 3.3
7.0.4 bad


This is the result for my 64 bit Linux machine:
JRE version Linux x64 (Ubuntu 10.4, AOO 3.4.1)
6.0.24(open-jdk) good
6.0.35 good
7.x bad

So the issue has a clear red line between JRE6 and JRE7.

Thanks a lot for you testing effort. With this information I will
adjust the text like the follwing:

[...]
Apache OpenOffice 3.4.0 and 3.4.1 support Java 7, which is the
recommended configuration; but (especially on 64-bit Windows) you
might receive warnings about the Java version being defective. In that
case, download and install [the most current JRE 6 version | link].
Make sure you get the "Windows x86 Offline (32-bit)" file. Then
configure OpenOffice to use it at "Tools - Options - OpenOffice.org -
Java". See [this forum topic | link] for more information.
[...]

With this everybody should be happy, right?

Marcus

I'm only comment, for me AOO 3.4.1 on Windows 64bit doesn't work at all
with Orace Java 7 (32 or 64).

The only option that works for me is to use to Orace/Sun Java 6 32bit on
Windows 64bit.
On Ubuntu 12.04 64bit I'm using 64bit openjdk6-jre 64 bit and everything
works (i didn't try jdk7).

Thanks for your comment. Exactly this should be the message in the text
I want to update.

Marcus


Marcus, I think the changes you recommended are fine. As for me, I don't know "tests" Andreas are running, but I'm on java 7, 1.7.0_04, and really no issues with anything I've done.

We need more enlightenment on this, but your changes should suffice.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
 butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet,
 balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying,
 take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations,
 analyze a new problem,  pitch manure, program a computer, cook a
 tasty  meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.
 Specialization is for insects."
                         -- Robert Heinlein, "Time Enough For Love"

Reply via email to