Backwards compatibility and auto updates

Nicolas Lorain nicolas.lorain at
Fri Jan 27 09:07:31 PST 2012

Hi Gaja,

We'll look into both issues. Documenting the optional parts is an 
obvious oversight that we should be able to fix easily. The former 
question may require some more time because we will have to involve 
somebody in our legal department


On 1/27/12 6:19 AM, Gaja Sutra wrote:
>> My assumption was that if you cobundle FX with your app, then you 
>> have control. True, that may also require cobundling the JRE so as 
>> not to use the system JRE. But to be honest, I'd do it that way 
>> anyhow because the JRE isn't 100% backwards compatible from release 
>> to release either.
>> What I think would be ideal is for there to be a Sparkle like 
>> framework for Java, such that you can get the patch-in place 
>> auto-upgrade and so forth for an app written in Java, cobundled with 
>> the JRE + FX.
> If we use a private JRE/JavaFX cobundled, can we reduce size of 
> Java/JavaFX runtime (then global installer) with Proguard + Pack200?
> Currently, this is not allowed by Oracle Binary Code License:
> (i) you distribute the Redistributables complete and unmodified, and 
> only bundled as part of Programs, [...]
> Thanks.
> NB: When I go at JavaFX documentation and try to read the README for 
> knowing optional parts, like in JRE, I don't find JavaFX 2.0.2 README 
> (only not redistributable 2.0!):
> It would be an useful add, at least for JavaFX 2.1.

More information about the openjfx-dev mailing list