On 8/1/2011 7:18 PM, Bobi St wrote:
--- Caldarale, Charles R<chuck.caldar...@unisys.com> schrieb am Mo, 1.8.2011:
it is obsolete in a way, because setting JAVA_HOME to JRE
gives the message : "NB: JAVA_HOME should point to a JDK
not a JRE".
The message is correct as stated; when JAVA_HOME is used, it *must* point to a JDK. If you want a specific JRE, you must set JRE_HOME, not JAVA_HOME. If
::: Well, if JDK is not needed anymore, why bother setting JAVA_HOME, why is it mentioned at all ?
Why not only to set JRE_HOME ?!?
Sorry, I can't parse that question.
::: I meant, if JDK is not needed anymore, why at all mentioning JAVA_HOME ?
the messaging seems at least to me a little confusing.
Please explain why. As far as I can see, you set JAVA_HOME to a JRE, which is
invalid; once you've done that, nothing useful can result.
::: Its all about JDK, if JDK is not needed anymore, why at all mentioning JAVA_HOME to JDK ?
My guess would be backwards compatibility. Also, there may be a reason
that somebody might want to use a JDK instead of a JRE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
