4 ms·

> Wanna bundle a JVM with your app so your users don't have to worry about the Java runtime? Why would that be the case? > Wanna use JavaFX? You have to jump

by sgift 7y ago

> Wanna bundle a JVM with your app so your users don't have to worry about the Java runtime? Why would that be the case? > Wanna use JavaFX? You have to jump to Java 11 and hope your dependencies don't fail with module packaging errors. Dependencies which still fail with module errors are basically abandoned and should probably be replaced. But even for those there's an escape hatch if you really want to continue using them, so that seems to be a non-issue? > The Java tech stack is awesome when it works, but to solve issues you have to go so deep into the tech stack that I'm starting to think it just can't be done unless you're at least a mid-sized company with JVM specialists on the payroll. Not developers, but systems people. I've worked either directly or indirectly with so many companies of all sizes using Java without any dedicated JVM specialists I'm pretty sure you're doing something very, very wrong with all the problems you seem to have.

vvillena 7y ago
> Why would that be the case? I have a desktop Java app with platform-specific installers (.msi, .deb, .dmg). The Windows and Mac installers include a Java runtime, so the user doesn't have to worry about installing an external runtime. I'm forced to use Oracle JVM, because it's the only Java distribution that includes the tools needed. There's ongoing development on a tool that should bring these and more related features to the open JVMs, but it's not done yet. > Dependencies which still fail with module errors are basically abandoned and should probably be replaced. But even for those there's an escape hatch if you really want to continue using them, so that seems to be a non-issue? The issue is that the upgrade path isn't smooth. I have to upgrade everything at the same time, because what works on Java 11 doesn't work in Java 8, and viceversa. It makes everything way harder than it should be, if there was a clear migration path. > I've worked either directly or indirectly with so many companies of all sizes using Java without any dedicated JVM specialists I'm pretty sure you're doing something very, very wrong with all the problems you seem to have. What I do falls into a niche. It's not "very wrong" but it's uncommon. The main issue is that Java was a non-issue, a stable platform to build upon. But the recent Oracle license change forced us to move to fully open versions of Java that do not have the same features, do not bundle the same libraries, and do not have documentation detailing all these differences. I'm not asking for a community to finish whatever feature I need, or for a company to make what I need free to use. I'm just trying to explain my own problems caused by Oracle forcing us to move to open distributions of the Java platform.

by sgift 7y ago

vvillena 7y ago

> Why would that be the case? I have a desktop Java app with platform-specific installers (.msi, .deb, .dmg). The Windows and Mac installers include a Java runtime, so the user doesn't have to worry about installing an external runtime. I'm forced to use Oracle JVM, because it's the only Java distribution that includes the tools needed. There's ongoing development on a tool that should bring these and more related features to the open JVMs, but it's not done yet. > Dependencies which still fail with module errors are basically abandoned and should probably be replaced. But even for those there's an escape hatch if you really want to continue using them, so that seems to be a non-issue? The issue is that the upgrade path isn't smooth. I have to upgrade everything at the same time, because what works on Java 11 doesn't work in Java 8, and viceversa. It makes everything way harder than it should be, if there was a clear migration path. > I've worked either directly or indirectly with so many companies of all sizes using Java without any dedicated JVM specialists I'm pretty sure you're doing something very, very wrong with all the problems you seem to have. What I do falls into a niche. It's not "very wrong" but it's uncommon. The main issue is that Java was a non-issue, a stable platform to build upon. But the recent Oracle license change forced us to move to fully open versions of Java that do not have the same features, do not bundle the same libraries, and do not have documentation detailing all these differences. I'm not asking for a community to finish whatever feature I need, or for a company to make what I need free to use. I'm just trying to explain my own problems caused by Oracle forcing us to move to open distributions of the Java platform.