3 ms·

And yet users obtain runtime environments for programs distributed as java bytecode and install them on their machine, system wide, all the time. Claiming the o

by usrusr 6y ago

And yet users obtain runtime environments for programs distributed as java bytecode and install them on their machine, system wide, all the time. Claiming the opposite isn't pedantic, it's something far beyond pedantic. For this usage pattern, the only thing that has disappeared is the distinction between full JDK download and the slightly trimmed down "runtime only" that had been causing all kinds of avoidable trouble immortalized by the Google search term "tools.jar".

pron 6y ago
I am not "claiming" anything. I am informing developers that as of versions beyond 8, we've discontinued the JRE and it no longer exists, and what you've described does not replicate its functionality. > For this usage pattern, the only thing that has disappeared is the distinction between full JDK download and the slightly trimmed down "runtime only" That's incorrect. What's disappeared is any notion of a system-wide Java environment managed by a third party, and that's what the JRE was. The JDK is now also not a system-wide environment in any way. While the usage you've described of asking end-users to "install" a JDK (i.e. placing it on your hard drive; the JDK also no longer has any installation beyond that) and pointing some system-wide configuration at it is discouraged for non-developer, and while people might still do it despite the JDK providing much better alternative, it still does not work like the JRE, and not only because the JDK is larger (BTW, speaking of the JDK size, as of JDK 9, the JDK contains the entire core libraries not just once but twice, once as jmod files used by jlink to create runtime images, and once again in its own runtime image).
- rrdharan 6y ago
  It seems you're struggling with the distinction between what Oracle calls the JRE, and what large or at least significant-to-HN swaths of industry seem to be calling it. Are you familiar with Debian? What would you call this? https://packages.debian.org/buster/default-jre https://packages.debian.org/buster/default-jre You seem very fixated on the desktop aspects of this that have been removed, such as JWS and the Control Panel. Neither of those are relevant to Linux server distributions. Until common Linux distributions no longer have an option to globally install a "default" environment that provides a Java Runtime via /usr/bin/java globally, it is nonsensical to talk about the JRE "not existing" regardless of what the OpenJDK team has decided for the future.
  - pron 6y ago
    I guess you're asking whether now that the JRE no longer exists [1] and some people choose to distribute other kinds of Java runtimes and call them "JRE" (different runtimes named JRE from different vendors are not the same), is that an acceptable use of the term? I don't really care as long as people understand, one, the difference between the JRE and any other Java runtime, whatever they choose to call it -- I will use the OpenJDK terminology, though -- and that two, OpenJDK discourages the use of runtimes managed by third parties on non-developer systems and such users shouldn't be encouraged to install one; a runtime shared by multiple applications and managed by their vendor is perfectly fine (as is deploying an application intended for developers as a JAR and relying on them to use their JDK's runtime to run it). BTW, the JRE was desktop software. For the server, there was a "Server JRE" (https://www.oracle.com/uk/java/technologies/javase-server-jre8-downloads.html https://www.oracle.com/uk/java/technologies/javase-server-jr...) which is, indeed, much more similar than the (desktop) JRE to the various server runtimes various vendors now call "JRE". [1]: Technically, OpenJDK has never had a JRE because the JRE has never been open-sourced, but now that Oracle has open-sourced the entire JDK and discontinued the JRE entirely, there is no more a popular JDK that isn't an OpenJDK build (although there are not-so-popular JDKs that aren't OpenJDK, like OpenJ9), and so the popular Java implementation no longer has a JRE.

by usrusr 6y ago

pron 6y ago

I am not "claiming" anything. I am informing developers that as of versions beyond 8, we've discontinued the JRE and it no longer exists, and what you've described does not replicate its functionality. > For this usage pattern, the only thing that has disappeared is the distinction between full JDK download and the slightly trimmed down "runtime only" That's incorrect. What's disappeared is any notion of a system-wide Java environment managed by a third party, and that's what the JRE was. The JDK is now also not a system-wide environment in any way. While the usage you've described of asking end-users to "install" a JDK (i.e. placing it on your hard drive; the JDK also no longer has any installation beyond that) and pointing some system-wide configuration at it is discouraged for non-developer, and while people might still do it despite the JDK providing much better alternative, it still does not work like the JRE, and not only because the JDK is larger (BTW, speaking of the JDK size, as of JDK 9, the JDK contains the entire core libraries not just once but twice, once as jmod files used by jlink to create runtime images, and once again in its own runtime image).

rrdharan 6y ago
It seems you're struggling with the distinction between what Oracle calls the JRE, and what large or at least significant-to-HN swaths of industry seem to be calling it. Are you familiar with Debian? What would you call this? https://packages.debian.org/buster/default-jre https://packages.debian.org/buster/default-jre You seem very fixated on the desktop aspects of this that have been removed, such as JWS and the Control Panel. Neither of those are relevant to Linux server distributions. Until common Linux distributions no longer have an option to globally install a "default" environment that provides a Java Runtime via /usr/bin/java globally, it is nonsensical to talk about the JRE "not existing" regardless of what the OpenJDK team has decided for the future.
- pron 6y ago
  I guess you're asking whether now that the JRE no longer exists [1] and some people choose to distribute other kinds of Java runtimes and call them "JRE" (different runtimes named JRE from different vendors are not the same), is that an acceptable use of the term? I don't really care as long as people understand, one, the difference between the JRE and any other Java runtime, whatever they choose to call it -- I will use the OpenJDK terminology, though -- and that two, OpenJDK discourages the use of runtimes managed by third parties on non-developer systems and such users shouldn't be encouraged to install one; a runtime shared by multiple applications and managed by their vendor is perfectly fine (as is deploying an application intended for developers as a JAR and relying on them to use their JDK's runtime to run it). BTW, the JRE was desktop software. For the server, there was a "Server JRE" (https://www.oracle.com/uk/java/technologies/javase-server-jre8-downloads.html https://www.oracle.com/uk/java/technologies/javase-server-jr...) which is, indeed, much more similar than the (desktop) JRE to the various server runtimes various vendors now call "JRE". [1]: Technically, OpenJDK has never had a JRE because the JRE has never been open-sourced, but now that Oracle has open-sourced the entire JDK and discontinued the JRE entirely, there is no more a popular JDK that isn't an OpenJDK build (although there are not-so-popular JDKs that aren't OpenJDK, like OpenJ9), and so the popular Java implementation no longer has a JRE.