Path: csiph.com!news.redatomik.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?= <arne@vajhoej.dk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: JDK vs JRE
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 19:21:00 -0400
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <ois4sr$sr1$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <79f5f306-f1fc-4923-83d7-f0fa5128de29@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: PBuS014lhzVyHjLbXmo/ZQ.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
Content-Language: en-US
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:36738

On 6/26/2017 3:22 PM, Eric Douglas wrote:
> I tried searching for differences and all I'm seeing is the obvious,
> the JDK contains the JRE plus the development tools. Other than a
> somewhat larger footprint, is there any harm in end users who only
> need a JRE installing a JDK?

If you by end users mean normal desktop PC's, then I don't see
any particular good reasons for not to install JDK. The extra
MB's is insignificant by todays standard.

Servers are different. Your company may very likely prohibit
all development tools on production servers to control what
software is there.

Arne