Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #33665 > unrolled thread

A very dark day indeed :-(

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  A very dark day indeed :-( Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-08 19:36 +0800
    Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-02-08 08:45 -0500
    Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2016-02-08 14:50 +0100
      Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-02-08 12:37 -0500
      Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-02-08 12:55 -0500
        Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-09 05:39 +0800
          Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-02-08 17:22 -0500
            Re: A very dark day indeed :-( maherrj@googlemail.com - 2016-02-08 17:08 -0800
              Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-02-08 20:30 -0500
                Re: A very dark day indeed :-( maherrj@googlemail.com - 2016-02-08 18:31 -0800
                  Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-02-08 22:02 -0500
                    Re: A very dark day indeed :-( maherrj@googlemail.com - 2016-02-08 20:04 -0800
                      Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-02-09 20:18 -0500
                        Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-02-09 20:55 -0500
                          Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 06:32 -0800
                    Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 05:27 -0800
                      Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2016-02-09 15:24 +0100
                        Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 06:38 -0800
                          Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2016-02-09 16:00 +0100
                            Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 07:20 -0800
                              Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2016-02-09 16:39 +0100
                                Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 07:50 -0800
                                  Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2016-02-09 17:16 +0100
                                    Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-02-09 20:40 -0500
                                      Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 06:28 -0800
                                        Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2016-02-10 17:21 +0100
                                          Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-02-10 22:03 -0500
                                            Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2016-02-11 09:33 +0100
                                              Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 05:32 -0800
                                                Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2016-02-11 15:42 +0100
                                        Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-02-10 21:58 -0500
                            Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Nigel Wade <nmw@ion.le.ac.uk> - 2016-02-09 15:59 +0000
                              Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2016-02-09 17:24 +0100
                                Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Nigel Wade <nmw@ion.le.ac.uk> - 2016-02-09 16:30 +0000
                                  Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2016-02-10 01:47 +0100
                                Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 08:55 -0800
                                  Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2016-02-10 01:59 +0100
                                    Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-02-09 20:48 -0500
                                      Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2016-02-10 17:35 +0100
                                        Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-02-10 22:05 -0500
                                          Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2016-02-11 09:39 +0100
                          Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-02-09 20:30 -0500
                        Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-02-09 20:28 -0500
                      Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-02-09 20:27 -0500
                        Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 05:27 -0800
                          Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-02-10 22:23 -0500
        Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 13:58 -0800
          Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-02-08 17:20 -0500
      Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2016-02-08 19:44 +0100
        Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-02-08 14:06 -0500
      Re: A very dark day indeed :-( Brixomatic <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-10 22:39 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#33723

On 02/09/2016 04:20 PM, Eric Douglas wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 10:01:05 AM UTC-5, Silvio wrote:
>> No, it does not work at all. It is not a security prompt but a plain
>> "save file as" dialog I get with any content type my browser does not
>> understand. Apart from a saved jnlp file there is nothing I can do from
>> there. Never any mention of running a Java application.
>>
>> Double clicking the file does nothing. Running the "file" command on it
>> reveals nothing but the fact that it is an ASCII encoded XML 1.0 file.
>
> You have a JRE installed?  You have the jnlp extension associated with Java?
>
> If you get a command prompt and manually pass the file (either using full paths or having the exe and the jnlp in current directory) it should work
>> javaws.exe treedemo.jnlp

silvio@mizuno:~$ java -version
openjdk version "1.8.0_01-internal"
OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_01-internal-b15)
OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.01-b15, mixed mode)

No, that is just my point. The standard OpenJDK for Ubuntu does not even 
include support for JNLP. An additional package called "icedtea-netx" 
has to be installed. The percentage of computers with a JDK installed is 
low already, adding the requirement that people have jumped through 
additional hoops makes it even less likely the application will run. And 
let's not even talk about tablets and smartphones running Android or IOS.

I used to do some heavy lifting Applets as graphical parts of some 
mostly-web applications around 2001. Did some experimenting with JNLP 
not long after that but soon gave up on the idea and moved to web-only 
applications.

I really sympathize with the ideas from back then but lets be honest: 
those times have passed and will never come back. Time to move on. I am 
inclined to say "good riddance" because the reputation of Java the 
platform has suffered a lot from half-heartedly supporting this stuff 
for way too long. Let's hope they just do not keep dragging along the 
still-born FX stuff.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33724

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 10:39:13 AM UTC-5, Silvio wrote:
> On 02/09/2016 04:20 PM, Eric Douglas wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 10:01:05 AM UTC-5, Silvio wrote:
> >> No, it does not work at all. It is not a security prompt but a plain
> >> "save file as" dialog I get with any content type my browser does not
> >> understand. Apart from a saved jnlp file there is nothing I can do from
> >> there. Never any mention of running a Java application.
> >>
> >> Double clicking the file does nothing. Running the "file" command on it
> >> reveals nothing but the fact that it is an ASCII encoded XML 1.0 file.
> >
> > You have a JRE installed?  You have the jnlp extension associated with Java?
> >
> > If you get a command prompt and manually pass the file (either using full paths or having the exe and the jnlp in current directory) it should work
> >> javaws.exe treedemo.jnlp
> 
> silvio@mizuno:~$ java -version
> openjdk version "1.8.0_01-internal"
> OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_01-internal-b15)
> OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.01-b15, mixed mode)
> 
> No, that is just my point. The standard OpenJDK for Ubuntu does not even 
> include support for JNLP. An additional package called "icedtea-netx" 
> has to be installed. The percentage of computers with a JDK installed is 
> low already, adding the requirement that people have jumped through 
> additional hoops makes it even less likely the application will run. And 
> let's not even talk about tablets and smartphones running Android or IOS.
> 
> I used to do some heavy lifting Applets as graphical parts of some 
> mostly-web applications around 2001. Did some experimenting with JNLP 
> not long after that but soon gave up on the idea and moved to web-only 
> applications.
> 
> I really sympathize with the ideas from back then but lets be honest: 
> those times have passed and will never come back. Time to move on. I am 
> inclined to say "good riddance" because the reputation of Java the 
> platform has suffered a lot from half-heartedly supporting this stuff 
> for way too long. Let's hope they just do not keep dragging along the 
> still-born FX stuff.

Web start is for the JRE, which is for the desktop.  This has nothing to do with JDK much less Android or iOS.  Oracle makes a JRE for Windows, Unix, and OSX.  I would think most people have this installed.  Web/app programs that run on tablets/phones are a completely different topic.  Android has it's own Java.  I don't know about Java on iOS, but you can always run server side Java and talk to iOS devices with a servlet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33727

On 02/09/2016 04:50 PM, Eric Douglas wrote:
>
> Web start is for the JRE, which is for the desktop.  This has nothing to do with JDK much less Android or iOS.  Oracle makes a JRE for Windows, Unix, and OSX.  I would think most people have this installed.  Web/app programs that run on tablets/phones are a completely different topic.  Android has it's own Java.  I don't know about Java on iOS, but you can always run server side Java and talk to iOS devices with a servlet.
>

JRE is part of the JDK. Assuming most people have a JRE installed is 
quite optimistic. Assuming the Web start will work is even more optimistic.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33741

On 2/9/2016 11:16 AM, Silvio wrote:
> JRE is part of the JDK. Assuming most people have a JRE installed is
> quite optimistic. Assuming the Web start will work is even more optimistic.

Running Java application requires Java installed.

That is something Java Web Start can not solve.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33746

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 8:40:10 PM UTC-5, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 2/9/2016 11:16 AM, Silvio wrote:
> > JRE is part of the JDK. Assuming most people have a JRE installed is
> > quite optimistic. Assuming the Web start will work is even more optimistic.
> 
> Running Java application requires Java installed.
> 
> That is something Java Web Start can not solve.
> 
> Arne

Anyone who needs it will install it.  What's your point?  Java is used more for business applications than programs for random individuals.  If you want to run certain web conference software in IE you have to install a plugin.
We all try to avoid dependencies to simplify software as much as possible, to the point of the 'put your thumbprint here' commercials for that tax software, but when they are required everyone will get them if they want to run the software, and installing a JRE isn't very difficult.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33750

On 02/10/2016 03:28 PM, Eric Douglas wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 8:40:10 PM UTC-5, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 2/9/2016 11:16 AM, Silvio wrote:
>>> JRE is part of the JDK. Assuming most people have a JRE installed is
>>> quite optimistic. Assuming the Web start will work is even more optimistic.
>>
>> Running Java application requires Java installed.
>>
>> That is something Java Web Start can not solve.
>>
>> Arne
>
> Anyone who needs it will install it.  What's your point?  Java is used more for business applications than programs for random individuals.  If you want to run certain web conference software in IE you have to install a plugin.
> We all try to avoid dependencies to simplify software as much as possible, to the point of the 'put your thumbprint here' commercials for that tax software, but when they are required everyone will get them if they want to run the software, and installing a JRE isn't very difficult.
>

I am speaking about application development in general since that is 
what defines which technologies prosper and which don't. Java is most 
definitely not used more for business applications than on applications 
for random individuals. If it where than the same things I have said 
about plug-ins would by now also hold for Java itself by now.

Yes, if you can limit yourself to a specific target audience (what  I 
previously called motivated users) and do not have to support thousands 
of them across the globe over time and plug-in versions then a 
plug-in/JRE on the client works fine and dandy. I never said otherwise.

We are in the business of writing software and then selling it. Our 
users are in the business of using our software to have their target 
audiences communicate with them.
Requiring our users to work with a specific runtime would seriously 
limit our customer potential. We come across corporations with security 
policies that ban JREs altogether more often than not. The same 
sometimes holds for a .NET runtime and if not at least they mandate a 
single specific (usually very old) version of it.
Requiring their target audience to have any kind of plug-in installed 
would be an absolute show-stopper.

Besides, our users nowadays demand they can use our applications with 
their iPad or Android smartphone if they so desire. That practically 
precludes the use of plug-ins.

That said we are completely dedicated to the JVM. Be it that we only run 
it on our servers and developer machines.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33765

On 2/10/2016 11:21 AM, Silvio wrote:
>                                                              Java is most
> definitely not used more for business applications than on applications
> for random individuals.

What?

A very large part of Java is Java EE for internal users within the
company.

>                    If it where than the same things I have said
> about plug-ins would by now also hold for Java itself by now.

What?

Why should the fact that a large part of Java users are internal
uses of Java EE web application simply that applet problems apply
to Java EE????

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33768

On 02/11/2016 04:03 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 2/10/2016 11:21 AM, Silvio wrote:
>>                                                              Java is most
>> definitely not used more for business applications than on applications
>> for random individuals.
>
> What?
>
> A very large part of Java is Java EE for internal users within the
> company.
>
>>                    If it where than the same things I have said
>> about plug-ins would by now also hold for Java itself by now.
>
> What?
>
> Why should the fact that a large part of Java users are internal
> uses of Java EE web application simply that applet problems apply
> to Java EE????
>
> Arne
>

I am just saying that Java had never risen to the level it has reached 
if it had been a corporate language like Eric suggests. And if that had 
been the case then its future would not be very bright.

I think here it is more useful to speak about Java in the broadest sense 
and in comparison to other languages and tools that are being used today 
and will be in the near future. For that reason it is also more 
interesting to reason about what a developer might use if he is to start 
something new. Existing applications will be around for decades. That 
does not keep their technologies in any way contemporary. But even if 
they have reached legacy status people will be using them for years to come.

Many in this ng are very defensive and sensitive if someone says their 
pet peeve favorite Java pet has become obsolete.

The time of Applets and even desktop Java has passed. Desktop .NET is 
barely holding on and Flash and Silverlight are on the way out or dead 
already. They have gone or will go the way of Cobol.

Now is the time of HTML/CSS/JS wep applications and native apps for 
Android/iOS and for the near future the most interesting thing to watch 
is how these two fight for the bone. Java plays a role in both so I 
think there is little reason for panic or denial.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33773

On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 3:33:53 AM UTC-5, Silvio wrote:
> I am just saying that Java had never risen to the level it has reached 
> if it had been a corporate language like Eric suggests. And if that had 
> been the case then its future would not be very bright.
> 
> I think here it is more useful to speak about Java in the broadest sense 
> and in comparison to other languages and tools that are being used today 
> and will be in the near future. For that reason it is also more 
> interesting to reason about what a developer might use if he is to start 
> something new. Existing applications will be around for decades. That 
> does not keep their technologies in any way contemporary. But even if 
> they have reached legacy status people will be using them for years to come.
> 
> Many in this ng are very defensive and sensitive if someone says their 
> pet peeve favorite Java pet has become obsolete.
> 
> The time of Applets and even desktop Java has passed. Desktop .NET is 
> barely holding on and Flash and Silverlight are on the way out or dead 
> already. They have gone or will go the way of Cobol.
> 
> Now is the time of HTML/CSS/JS wep applications and native apps for 
> Android/iOS and for the near future the most interesting thing to watch 
> is how these two fight for the bone. Java plays a role in both so I 
> think there is little reason for panic or denial.

Try searching for a job, there are a lot of Java listings, and mostly they're for internal corporate applications not for software to sell to individuals.  I have worked for one of the largest corporations in the world.  They were running COBOL and switching to PeopleSoft (oh look Java).
https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E41509_01/pt852pbh2/eng/psbooks/tcpi/chapter.htm?File=tcpi/htm/tcpi06.htm

Applets are as dead as ActiveX because they were a way to run Java code in a browser.  Java is fine for a server program that talks to code that runs in a browser but it's a security risk to directly run Java code in the browser.  Many languages can run in the browser and/or communicate from the server to the code running in the browser.  Which ones are dying and which are growing? Python? HTML5? Javascript? PHP? Ruby? Java EE? Does it make sense to write a mobile app using HTML/Javascript, or use Android Java? Web coding sounds complicated.  Throw in Applets as a dying web tech and take desktop Java out of that.  Most people aren't writing desktop applications with HTML.

Desktop Java is still very popular.  It can be written directly using Swing and/or JavaFX as I do, or from a higher level framework like Spring.  Webstart isn't a language, it's a deployment strategy for that client desktop application, which is why you won't see it mentioned in job ads.  Companies using webstart would just advertise for Java developers, or some other software that runs on Java, just like they won't specifically ask for programmers who know how to manage GPOs.  A lot of Java ads are also looking for someone who knows some specific web integration framework but that has nothing to do with webstart.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33774

On 02/11/2016 02:32 PM, Eric Douglas wrote:
> On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 3:33:53 AM UTC-5, Silvio wrote:
>> I am just saying that Java had never risen to the level it has reached
>> if it had been a corporate language like Eric suggests. And if that had
>> been the case then its future would not be very bright.
>>
>> I think here it is more useful to speak about Java in the broadest sense
>> and in comparison to other languages and tools that are being used today
>> and will be in the near future. For that reason it is also more
>> interesting to reason about what a developer might use if he is to start
>> something new. Existing applications will be around for decades. That
>> does not keep their technologies in any way contemporary. But even if
>> they have reached legacy status people will be using them for years to come.
>>
>> Many in this ng are very defensive and sensitive if someone says their
>> pet peeve favorite Java pet has become obsolete.
>>
>> The time of Applets and even desktop Java has passed. Desktop .NET is
>> barely holding on and Flash and Silverlight are on the way out or dead
>> already. They have gone or will go the way of Cobol.
>>
>> Now is the time of HTML/CSS/JS wep applications and native apps for
>> Android/iOS and for the near future the most interesting thing to watch
>> is how these two fight for the bone. Java plays a role in both so I
>> think there is little reason for panic or denial.
>
> Try searching for a job, there are a lot of Java listings, and mostly they're for internal corporate applications not for software to sell to individuals.  I have worked for one of the largest corporations in the world.  They were running COBOL and switching to PeopleSoft (oh look Java).
> https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E41509_01/pt852pbh2/eng/psbooks/tcpi/chapter.htm?File=tcpi/htm/tcpi06.htm
>

If you are mostly concerned about finding a job then legacy code volume 
is very important. Cobol, JEE-the-old-way etc. are your best bets then. 
But knowing your way around SQL-Forms and SQL-plus won't hurt either.

> Applets are as dead as ActiveX because they were a way to run Java code in a browser.  Java is fine for a server program that talks to code that runs in a browser but it's a security risk to directly run Java code in the browser.  Many languages can run in the browser and/or communicate from the server to the code running in the browser.  Which ones are dying and which are growing? Python? HTML5? Javascript? PHP? Ruby? Java EE? Does it make sense to write a mobile app using HTML/Javascript, or use Android Java? Web coding sounds complicated.  Throw in Applets as a dying web tech and take desktop Java out of that.  Most people aren't writing desktop applications with HTML.
>

An application is a desktop one simply because it was written that way. 
It is not an inherit property of the application but a consequence of 
the way it was implemented.

> Desktop Java is still very popular.  It can be written directly using Swing and/or JavaFX as I do, or from a higher level framework like Spring.  Webstart isn't a language, it's a deployment strategy for that client desktop application, which is why you won't see it mentioned in job ads.  Companies using webstart would just advertise for Java developers, or some other software that runs on Java, just like they won't specifically ask for programmers who know how to manage GPOs.  A lot of Java ads are also looking for someone who knows some specific web integration framework but that has nothing to do with webstart.
>

The discussion was about Oracle dropping Applets and therefore the 
relevance of Applets and its suggested alternative, Web start.

My point is that most new applications are either developed as web 
application or mobile app (or both) because that makes the most sense 
for a particular business case. Anyone would be hard pressed to make a 
strong case for starting something completely new as a desktop Java 
application.
I have worked with and for many corporations developing in-house 
applications. The last time I saw one of them build a Java desktop 
application was somewhere around 2005. After that it was either web or 
.NET/Silverlight and more recent mobile apps.

As said that says nothing about what was developed in the past and may 
still be in use. I could probably not even buy a piece of chewing gum 
without indirectly depending on some piece of Cobol somewhere. Does that 
make Cobol relevant? Yes, if you are looking for a job. Otherwise, 
probably no. I say the same is true for desktop Java because that is 
what legacy means in this regard: not relevant for new applications but 
still very relevant for maintaining existing ones.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33762

On 2/10/2016 9:28 AM, Eric Douglas wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 8:40:10 PM UTC-5, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 2/9/2016 11:16 AM, Silvio wrote:
>>> JRE is part of the JDK. Assuming most people have a JRE installed
>>> is quite optimistic. Assuming the Web start will work is even
>>> more optimistic.
>>
>> Running Java application requires Java installed.
>>
>> That is something Java Web Start can not solve.
>
> Anyone who needs it will install it.

If the application is a "must have" sure but not if it is
a "nice to have".

>                                     What's your point?

That there is nothing Oracle can do about it.

>                                                          Java is
> used more for business applications than programs for random
> individuals.

It certainly is in the real world today.

But applets was intended to target what you call random individuals.

And Java Web Start as an alternative to applets would need to.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33726

On 09/02/16 15:00, Silvio wrote:
> No, it does not work at all. It is not a security prompt but a plain "save file as" dialog I get with any content type
> my browser does not understand. Apart from a saved jnlp file there is nothing I can do from there. Never any mention of
> running a Java application.

That just means that your browser is not configured correctly. Configure it to handle jnlp with Java Web Start.
If it can't be configured to do that then it's the browser which is broken, not JWS. Some are broken deliberately.

Failing that, just run javaws with the correct URI. There's no need for a browser at all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33728

On 02/09/2016 04:59 PM, Nigel Wade wrote:
> On 09/02/16 15:00, Silvio wrote:
>> No, it does not work at all. It is not a security prompt but a plain
>> "save file as" dialog I get with any content type
>> my browser does not understand. Apart from a saved jnlp file there is
>> nothing I can do from there. Never any mention of
>> running a Java application.
>
> That just means that your browser is not configured correctly. Configure
> it to handle jnlp with Java Web Start.
> If it can't be configured to do that then it's the browser which is
> broken, not JWS. Some are broken deliberately.
>
> Failing that, just run javaws with the correct URI. There's no need for
> a browser at all.
>
>
>
>

Nope. Not unless I go through the trouble of installing all kinds of 
stuff manually. Windows and OSX come without Java installed. Some Linux 
distros come with a recent OpenJDK but most don't. OpenJDK on Linux does 
not come with javaws, I doubt the OSX version does.

In the end Web start is only an option if you have a user who is really 
motivated to run your application.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33729

On 09/02/16 16:24, Silvio wrote:
> On 02/09/2016 04:59 PM, Nigel Wade wrote:
>> On 09/02/16 15:00, Silvio wrote:
>>> No, it does not work at all. It is not a security prompt but a plain
>>> "save file as" dialog I get with any content type
>>> my browser does not understand. Apart from a saved jnlp file there is
>>> nothing I can do from there. Never any mention of
>>> running a Java application.
>>
>> That just means that your browser is not configured correctly. Configure
>> it to handle jnlp with Java Web Start.
>> If it can't be configured to do that then it's the browser which is
>> broken, not JWS. Some are broken deliberately.
>>
>> Failing that, just run javaws with the correct URI. There's no need for
>> a browser at all.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Nope. Not unless I go through the trouble of installing all kinds of stuff manually. Windows and OSX come without Java
> installed. Some Linux distros come with a recent OpenJDK but most don't. OpenJDK on Linux does not come with javaws, I
> doubt the OSX version does.
>
> In the end Web start is only an option if you have a user who is really motivated to run your application.

and how is that any different from:

if you want to run any application you have to install that application first
if you want to run flash videos you have to install flash first
if you want to run any .NET application you have to install .NET first

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33732

On 02/09/2016 05:30 PM, Nigel Wade wrote:
> On 09/02/16 16:24, Silvio wrote:
>> On 02/09/2016 04:59 PM, Nigel Wade wrote:
>>> On 09/02/16 15:00, Silvio wrote:
>>>> No, it does not work at all. It is not a security prompt but a plain
>>>> "save file as" dialog I get with any content type
>>>> my browser does not understand. Apart from a saved jnlp file there is
>>>> nothing I can do from there. Never any mention of
>>>> running a Java application.
>>>
>>> That just means that your browser is not configured correctly. Configure
>>> it to handle jnlp with Java Web Start.
>>> If it can't be configured to do that then it's the browser which is
>>> broken, not JWS. Some are broken deliberately.
>>>
>>> Failing that, just run javaws with the correct URI. There's no need for
>>> a browser at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Nope. Not unless I go through the trouble of installing all kinds of
>> stuff manually. Windows and OSX come without Java
>> installed. Some Linux distros come with a recent OpenJDK but most
>> don't. OpenJDK on Linux does not come with javaws, I
>> doubt the OSX version does.
>>
>> In the end Web start is only an option if you have a user who is
>> really motivated to run your application.
>
> and how is that any different from:
>
> if you want to run any application you have to install that application
> first
> if you want to run flash videos you have to install flash first
> if you want to run any .NET application you have to install .NET first
>

True, although flash is not needed to play video but it is needed to run 
flash animations and applications, just like .NET, Silverlight etc. That 
is why they are fading away and have even been abandoned by their 
inventors. At this moment only mobile apps are the remaining thriving 
example of this deployment model.  And I expect that to change in the 
future as well.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33730

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 11:25:04 AM UTC-5, Silvio wrote:
> Nope. Not unless I go through the trouble of installing all kinds of 
> stuff manually. Windows and OSX come without Java installed. Some Linux 
> distros come with a recent OpenJDK but most don't. OpenJDK on Linux does 
> not come with javaws, I doubt the OSX version does.
> 
> In the end Web start is only an option if you have a user who is really 
> motivated to run your application.

If your user is on Windows, Linux, or OSX, web start just works.  A JRE is a point and click - next, next, next, done kind of install.  This may be difficult for some end users who don't have access to an IT person but it's no different than any other Java program, and should be a no-brainer.  You can use TeamViewer to help them.

I recently wanted to run a .NET program and had to install .NET 3.5, not on Windows by default.  Something is required to install for any interpretive language.  HTML is just the easiest interpretive language because every modern PC/tablet/smart phone comes with a browser, though most Windows users I know manage to install Chrome.  Without any interpretive language you have to supply byte-code compiled runnables for every OS.

If you really want software that doesn't require any install for universal use just write HTML, and as I mentioned you can communicate with a server side Java app through a servlet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33733

On 02/09/2016 05:55 PM, Eric Douglas wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 11:25:04 AM UTC-5, Silvio wrote:
>> Nope. Not unless I go through the trouble of installing all kinds of
>> stuff manually. Windows and OSX come without Java installed. Some Linux
>> distros come with a recent OpenJDK but most don't. OpenJDK on Linux does
>> not come with javaws, I doubt the OSX version does.
>>
>> In the end Web start is only an option if you have a user who is really
>> motivated to run your application.
>
> If your user is on Windows, Linux, or OSX, web start just works.  A JRE is a point and click - next, next, next, done kind of install.  This may be difficult for some end users who don't have access to an IT person but it's no different than any other Java program, and should be a no-brainer.  You can use TeamViewer to help them.
>
> I recently wanted to run a .NET program and had to install .NET 3.5, not on Windows by default.  Something is required to install for any interpretive language.  HTML is just the easiest interpretive language because every modern PC/tablet/smart phone comes with a browser, though most Windows users I know manage to install Chrome.  Without any interpretive language you have to supply byte-code compiled runnables for every OS.
>
> If you really want software that doesn't require any install for universal use just write HTML, and as I mentioned you can communicate with a server side Java app through a servlet.
>

That is what I call extremely motivated. Unless users are forced to use 
the application (by their employer or lack of an alternative, the latter 
of which is unlikely nowadays) they will move away.

The funny thing is that both opposing ends of the deployment spectrum 
are doing quite well: zero install web applications on the one side and 
locally installed fat applications for mobile platforms on the other end.

The generic plug-ins in the middle are all fading. They suffer from 
inherit disadvantages: messy deployment schemes, version compatibility 
issues and last but not least security issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33742

On 2/9/2016 7:59 PM, Silvio wrote:
> That is what I call extremely motivated. Unless users are forced to use
> the application (by their employer or lack of an alternative, the latter
> of which is unlikely nowadays) they will move away.
>
> The funny thing is that both opposing ends of the deployment spectrum
> are doing quite well: zero install web applications on the one side and
> locally installed fat applications for mobile platforms on the other end.
>
> The generic plug-ins in the middle are all fading. They suffer from
> inherit disadvantages: messy deployment schemes, version compatibility
> issues and last but not least security issues.

Obviously people will only install a plugin/framework if they need it
for something. That is hardly surprising.

If they need it then they do not seem to consider it a big problem.
Java, Flash and SL all was rather widespread when they were needed
for web browsing.

The replacement for plugins JavaScript also has version issues
and security problems, so not likely to be a major driver for
plugins going away.

I think that the by far biggest driver for plugins going
away is the widespread usage of smartphones and tablets.

The logic is simple: Google and Apple does not like things
that could seriously impact their OS's usage => so they try
to block the usage of plugins => the 50% of web browsing
done from smartphone and tablet does not have plugins =>
content provides switch from plugins to JavaScript that
100% has => the remaining 50% of PC based web browsing
starts removing the plugins due to no need any longer.

Also there may be some politics involved. Java is SUN/Oracle.
Flash is Adobe. SL is Microsoft. HTML/CSS/JS is everyone. Much
easier to create unity about.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33751

On 02/10/2016 02:48 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 2/9/2016 7:59 PM, Silvio wrote:
>
> Obviously people will only install a plugin/framework if they need it
> for something. That is hardly surprising.
>
> If they need it then they do not seem to consider it a big problem.
> Java, Flash and SL all was rather widespread when they were needed
> for web browsing.

Well, that depends. Many users have limited control over their own 
computer and installing a runtime will involve having heated discussions 
with stubborn and ill-informed system administrators. If they are 
working inside some Citrix like environment then their chance of success 
is even more limited.

Ten years ago most corporations I encountered allowed the use of a JVM. 
That has changed dramatically in more recent years, at least here in 
Western Europe.

>
> The replacement for plugins JavaScript also has version issues
> and security problems, so not likely to be a major driver for
> plugins going away.
>
> I think that the by far biggest driver for plugins going
> away is the widespread usage of smartphones and tablets.
>
> The logic is simple: Google and Apple does not like things
> that could seriously impact their OS's usage => so they try
> to block the usage of plugins => the 50% of web browsing
> done from smartphone and tablet does not have plugins =>
> content provides switch from plugins to JavaScript that
> 100% has => the remaining 50% of PC based web browsing
> starts removing the plugins due to no need any longer.
>
> Also there may be some politics involved. Java is SUN/Oracle.
> Flash is Adobe. SL is Microsoft. HTML/CSS/JS is everyone. Much
> easier to create unity about.

Agree on all counts. Except that HTML/CSS/JS nowadays suffers much less 
already from these problems than the plug-ins you mentioned. And the gap 
is growing fast.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33766

On 2/10/2016 11:35 AM, Silvio wrote:
> On 02/10/2016 02:48 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 2/9/2016 7:59 PM, Silvio wrote:
>> Obviously people will only install a plugin/framework if they need it
>> for something. That is hardly surprising.
>>
>> If they need it then they do not seem to consider it a big problem.
>> Java, Flash and SL all was rather widespread when they were needed
>> for web browsing.
>
> Well, that depends. Many users have limited control over their own
> computer and installing a runtime will involve having heated discussions
> with stubborn and ill-informed system administrators. If they are
> working inside some Citrix like environment then their chance of success
> is even more limited.
>
> Ten years ago most corporations I encountered allowed the use of a JVM.
> That has changed dramatically in more recent years, at least here in
> Western Europe.

10 years ago the same corporations would strictly prohibit email access
from outside, but today they allow it.

10 years ago Java was necessary and external email access was not. Today
it is the other way around.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web