5 ms·

Show HN: Unmodified Java Swing apps in any browser, fully client side

29 points by apignotti 9y ago

jlebrech 9y ago
I want to be able include libraries that are server side only but the framework knows to separate that out and run on the server side and handle the data transmission.
- alextheparrot 9y ago
  Might be worth looking into Autowire [0]. Runs Scala code locally, compiles your API through ScalaJS, allowing you to write your app all in one language without exposing the business logic to the client. [0] https://github.com/lihaoyi/autowire https://github.com/lihaoyi/autowire
  - jlebrech 9y ago
    my idea for now are objects that can be compiled twice, once for private methods which run on the server and public methods on the client and the compilation process handles the wiring.
dpratt 9y ago
I don't know the details of how this is implemented - I'm assuming that it's some sort of translation of JVM byte code to asm.js and a re-implementation of the core JDK runtime - but the question arises: why? If you're still forced to use browser-based client-side Java applications, for whatever reason, what does this get you that just using the actual JVM plugin doesn't?
- brimstedt 9y ago
  I believe this is for running non-browser applications in the browser. Perhaps this could be a solution to avoid citrix or similar technologies if you have java apps only.
- ComputerGuru 9y ago
  Are you kidding? If that's really what this does, you've just properly sandboxed a horribly insecure binary plugin, eliminated the need to constantly install patches, heck, eliminated the need to even install a plugin whatsoever.
- foota 9y ago
  Security provided by the browser's vm instead of the system jvm?
- rtb 9y ago
  The JVM plugin will only run signed applets these days, which costs at least $200 or so. Presumably this will allow people who have legacy unsigned applets a way out?
- captainmuon 9y ago
  Its pretty hard to run an actual java applet nowadays. I think Chrome doesn't support it at all, Firefox may have also stopped supporting it. The Java applet plugin requires all code to be signed, and you can't disable that check, so if you have some legacy applet it is going to be quite difficult.
- apignotti 9y ago
  JVM byte code is translated to (highly optimized) vanilla, garbage collected JS (not Asm.js), moreover we provide a full build of the unmodified OpenJDK to guarantee compatibility with any application.
j_s 9y ago
Cheerp[J] seems to have a handful of fans here on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=cheerpj&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=cheerpj&sort=byPopularity&pref... apignotti also posted the big discussion yesterday; gratz! Definitely some interest here. CheerpJ Applet Viewer – Runs Java applets without a local Java installation | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14587296 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14587296 Not really sure on the licensing model; it doesn't appear to be open source. From the FAQ: Details on the commercial licensing model will be made available at a later date.
anujku 9y ago
Oh man, GWT mechanism all over again ?

29 points by apignotti 9y ago

I want to be able include libraries that are server side only but the framework knows to separate that out and run on the server side and handle the data transmission.

alextheparrot 9y ago
Might be worth looking into Autowire [0]. Runs Scala code locally, compiles your API through ScalaJS, allowing you to write your app all in one language without exposing the business logic to the client. [0] https://github.com/lihaoyi/autowire https://github.com/lihaoyi/autowire
- jlebrech 9y ago
  my idea for now are objects that can be compiled twice, once for private methods which run on the server and public methods on the client and the compilation process handles the wiring.

dpratt 9y ago

I don't know the details of how this is implemented - I'm assuming that it's some sort of translation of JVM byte code to asm.js and a re-implementation of the core JDK runtime - but the question arises: why? If you're still forced to use browser-based client-side Java applications, for whatever reason, what does this get you that just using the actual JVM plugin doesn't?

brimstedt 9y ago
I believe this is for running non-browser applications in the browser. Perhaps this could be a solution to avoid citrix or similar technologies if you have java apps only.
ComputerGuru 9y ago
Are you kidding? If that's really what this does, you've just properly sandboxed a horribly insecure binary plugin, eliminated the need to constantly install patches, heck, eliminated the need to even install a plugin whatsoever.
foota 9y ago
Security provided by the browser's vm instead of the system jvm?
rtb 9y ago
The JVM plugin will only run signed applets these days, which costs at least $200 or so. Presumably this will allow people who have legacy unsigned applets a way out?
captainmuon 9y ago
Its pretty hard to run an actual java applet nowadays. I think Chrome doesn't support it at all, Firefox may have also stopped supporting it. The Java applet plugin requires all code to be signed, and you can't disable that check, so if you have some legacy applet it is going to be quite difficult.
apignotti 9y ago
JVM byte code is translated to (highly optimized) vanilla, garbage collected JS (not Asm.js), moreover we provide a full build of the unmodified OpenJDK to guarantee compatibility with any application.

j_s 9y ago

Cheerp[J] seems to have a handful of fans here on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=cheerpj&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=cheerpj&sort=byPopularity&pref... apignotti also posted the big discussion yesterday; gratz! Definitely some interest here. CheerpJ Applet Viewer – Runs Java applets without a local Java installation | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14587296 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14587296 Not really sure on the licensing model; it doesn't appear to be open source. From the FAQ: Details on the commercial licensing model will be made available at a later date.

anujku 9y ago

Oh man, GWT mechanism all over again ?