Auto-update of native application bundles
richard.bair at oracle.com
Sat Jun 16 18:47:30 PDT 2012
They'll be locked together.
On Jun 16, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Daniel Zwolenski <zonski at googlemail.com> wrote:
> A question for the JFX guys on JRE+JFX co-bundling:
> Now that JFX is co-bundled in the JRE does that mean to upgrade to a newer
> version of JFX we will need to upgrade our JDK/JRE each time, or do you
> intend to have patch updates?
> I guess ultimately my question is will the developer be able to mix and
> match JRE and JFX versions or will it be a case of JREu6 is locked in to
> have JFXb2.2, and if you want JFX2.3 then you have to upgrade to JREu7 (for
> example, I'm just making up version numbers).
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Daniel Zwolenski <zonski at googlemail.com>wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Dr. Michael Paus <mp at jugs.org> wrote:
>>> Am 16.06.2012 12:43, schrieb Daniel Zwolenski:
>>>> Is your JRE really 20MB? If so that would be awesome, but I'm not sure
>>>> how I managed to end up with such a massive one. I admit I have had about
>>>> 50 different versions of JRE's + JDKs on this machine over the last 12
>>>> months (every client I have has different version requirements and half of
>>>> them have legacy projects and require multiple JREs at the one site!).
>>> I just downloaded the latest JRE7 offline installer from this web page:
>>> The windows offline installers are almost exactly 20MB and if I
>>> understood it correctly the also already contain JavaFX.
>>> And as I already said, the size of this should be further reducible if
>>> one would kick out everything that is not needed for an embedded JRE
>>> but the Oracle guys should know that much better than I do.
>>> LG, Michael
>> Ah, ok. The JRE install is 20MB compressed but when you install it, it
>> extracts to 90MB. So the reason my MSI is 30MB is due to the fact that the
>> tools I am using are not compressing the files as effectively as whatever
>> is used to build the JRE installer. I currently use the third party tool Advanced
>> Installer <http://www.advancedinstaller.com/> to assemble my MSI. It does
>> have an option to use LZMA compression, which might result in a smaller
>> installer but I have to upgrade to the paid version for that.
>> Since the ultimate goal will be to use Igor's MSI assembler, it's probably
>> more important what compression algorithm is used by his tools. I notice
>> that the Ensemble MSI produced from the new packaging tools is around 50MB
>> as well, so I'm guessing Igor is doing a similar method of compression. I'm
>> guessing that this is all done by WiX however, rather than code he has
>> written directly. There is a 'CompressionLevel' attribute in WiX from the
>> look of it - but I'm not sure what level Igor uses by default?
>> On the topic of stripping stuff out to make the install smaller, this is
>> definitely an option and something to look at long term. I did have a
>> little look at this but since the compression was already dropping the size
>> from 90MB to 30MB, I would have to strip out some significant chunks to
>> make much impact on the resulting MSI (even more if we manage to compress
>> it down to 20MB). Since the Java rt.jar is already 50MB, stripping out the
>> other bits and pieces I could find was having very meagre gains. Killing
>> "classes.jsa" might shave a few MB though, assuming this doesn't break
>> anything. It's something to look into but is probably more important on
>> Igor's end.
>> I suspect the best answer we'll be able to manage on this topic will be:
>> just put up with the larger download sizes for jre7 and await the magical
>> wonder of jre8 (let's hope it delivers on its promise in this area!).
More information about the openjfx-dev