pedro.duquevieira at gmail.com
pedro.duquevieira at gmail.com
Fri Apr 20 06:23:06 PDT 2012
I'm sorry I thought this issues were known so I didn't report them. I'll report the issue to Jira than.
As for issue B wouldn't it be possible to install both 32bit and 64bit JVM for users that have 64 bit PCs?
I think most users aren't aware what 64bit/32bit is, and the best would be if this was transparent to the user. Would it be possible to autodetect this?
Thanks, best regards,
Sent from my iPad
On 20/04/2012, at 06:55, Igor Nekrestyanov <igor.nekrestyanov at oracle.com> wrote:
> We are working on improving deployment experience but obviously more work is needed.
> There is no need to argument for it.
> But we really need more specific complains/ideas/suggestions/feedback from you guys.
> Please share what are specific pain points you are facing.
> For the sake of clarity it will help to structure them to separate different "similar" topics:
> 1) Runtime deployment/installation issues
> If application does not attempt to launch because "javafx runtime need to be installed" and
> you are sure it is installed then it falls into this bucket.
> Obviously it impacts overall deployment experience but we hope these issues will be less critical
> in near future once JavaFX will be part of Java Runtime.
> 2) Standalone application deployment issues
> E.g. redistribution of javafx with the application, wrapping as .exe file, etc.
> 3) Deployment issues for apps embedded in the browser/webstart
> E.g. runtime failures, signing issues, bad APIs, etc.
> So far (quite unfortunate) we do not have many deployment-related issues reported to the JIRA from outside of Oracle,
> and many of existing reports are non detailed :(
> Please tell us what does not work (and when), what features are missing, where and why UE is suboptimal, etc.
> We are looking into every single bug report we get on deployment and trying to do this promptly.
> Most of reports we get are of the first kind (JavaFX-aware plugin/webstart artifacts are not properly registered)
> and we had fixed a lot of them recently (in 2.1/7u4).
> There are two big outstanding issues:
> A. Older JRE releases (including recent 6 updates!) are not fully aware of JavaFX Runtime
> and installation of such JRE on the system that has JavaFX may corrupt the registry.
> This is especially annoying as JRE 6 is being autoupdated and these updates may corrupt JavaFX installation.
> Changes had been done to JRE 6 installer to be more compatible with JavaFX and soon autoupdate will switch to JRE 7.
> JavaFX will become part of JRE installation too. With all this we expect this issue to be much less frequent in the real world.
> B. Users of 64 bit Windows system tend to install 64 bit JRE and 64 plugin but most of browsers on these systems are 32-bit apps.
> (Chrome and Firefox are 32 bit)
> We are looking into improving messaging to make it more for the user. Not sure what else can be done.
> I suspect that specific problem you are referring below is caused by installing 6u31 autoupdate on system that had FX.
> Reinstallation of JavaFX should likely help to heal the registry.
> Please do not hesitate to report issues you are seeing with latest JavaFX builds (ideally to the JIRA) and help us to troubleshoot them
> (these areas are very sensitive to the system configuration and setup). We will be happy to work with you to get to the bottom of them.
> Do not wait for "next" build, sooner we know about the issue sooner we can resolve it.
> And given the nature of these issues more people report them more likely we will have enough details to reproduce problem in house.
> Ideas, suggestions on what features might be useful or what changes in deployment architecture are needed are very welcome too,
> On 4/18/12 1:42 PM, Pedro Duque Vieira wrote:
>> I'm very concerned about the state of deployment in JavaFX. Just yesterday
>> I tried the new example by Jim Weaver in
>> It doesn't work correctly in firefox nor chrome, only managed to make it
>> work on IE 9 64bit. And it appears I'm not the only one.
>> Also the state of application installers for Java doesn't seem that good
>> either (I think).
>> I think this is very critical, if the technology can't get to the users in
>> a transparent, simple, reliable way than you'll almost certainly won't get
>> it adopted.
>> Thanks, best regards
More information about the openjfx-dev