Re: [website-dev] JRE issue/questions...

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