Query to Java status on "OS X Lion" (10.7)

[Ben Smith-Mannschott]

Hi Posse,

Lion looks promising from where I'm sitting, but I'm waiting until the
Java story shakes out before I upgrade.

I know that Apple won't be supplying a Java implementation with Lion.
I don't know if the upgrade disables/deletes the existing JDK
implementations that were include with 10.6. I suspect it does. Does
anyone know one way or the other?

I see that there are Java 7 RC's available for Linux and Windows. Does
anyone know if/when there will be a Mac JDK 7 forthcoming from Oracle?

Failing that, does anyone know a good source of info on how to build
an X11 version of the JDK that works on Lion?

// Ben

[Mark Derricutt]

When you install Lion there is no Java -preinstalled-.

However, if you run any java application, or run "java" from the command line then Lion will prompt you, and automatically install java for you, then run the application you original tried to run.

If you want OpenJDK 1.7 - download Henri Gomez's excellent binary packages from:

http://code.google.com/p/openjdk-osx-build/

They work a treat - they're from the MacOS branch and even have the new Cocoa Swing contributed from Apple ( not fully tried it out tho ).

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.
> To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
>

[Ben Smith-Mannschott]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:49, Mark Derricutt <ma...@talios.com> wrote:
> When you install Lion there is no Java -preinstalled-.
>
> However, if you run any java application, or run "java" from the command line then Lion will prompt you, and automatically install java for you, then run the application you original tried to run.
>
> If you want OpenJDK 1.7 - download Henri Gomez's excellent binary packages from:
>
> http://code.google.com/p/openjdk-osx-build/
>
> They work a treat - they're from the MacOS branch and even have the new Cocoa Swing contributed from Apple ( not fully tried it out tho ).

Thanks Mark,

Also, Google found me a link to an Apple Support page offering a
Lion-compatible installer for Java 1.6.0_26:

http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1421

// Ben

[Mark Derricutt]

That looks to be the one they auto-install when you attempt to run any java apps.

Personally - I'm zoo down with this install model.  So seamless, and if you don't care about Java then you don't have it.

[Alexis Moussine-Pouchkine]

Right. In fact if you have OpenJDK installed prior to the upgrade it'll still be there after Lion is installed.
-Alexis

[Kirk]

+1

[Josh Juneau]

Also of note, if you have OpenJDK installed prior to upgrading, it does not remove it.  

Josh Juneau
june...@gmail.com
http://jj-blogger.blogspot.com
http://www.jythonbook.com
Oracle PL/SQL Recipes - http://www.apress.com/9781430232070

[Josh Juneau]

I missed the post from Alexis...sorry that I repeated information!  I guess it would be worthwhile to note that Netbeans and Glassfish work great on Lion!  Hopefully that information is of value to someone....otherwise carry on.  :)

Josh Juneau
june...@gmail.com
http://jj-blogger.blogspot.com
http://www.jythonbook.com
Oracle PL/SQL Recipes - http://www.apress.com/9781430232070

[Alexis Moussine-Pouchkine]

No worries! :)
In fact GlassFish also runs well on the Mac OpenJDK 7 port (more on that soon).
-Alexis

[Tommy]

There's also a "Java for Mac OS X 10.7 Developer Package" from
connect.apple.com where it the source, javadocs and some other stuff
native to Apple platform.

On Jul 22, 5:43 am, Ben Smith-Mannschott <bsmith.o...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[jwd]

What a great way for Apple to gauge the real requirement to continue Java support on the platform. Now all that is needed is some killer app that requires the JVM - written in any language one presumes - to get Steve's attention again.

[Carl Jokl]

....Minecraft?....Spiral Knights....

It seems almost strange that just as it seems like client Java has been dying the death, two highly popular games come out based on it.

[Cédric Beust ♔]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Carl Jokl <carl...@gmail.com> wrote:

....Minecraft?....Spiral Knights....

It seems almost strange that just as it seems like client Java has been dying the death, two highly popular games come out based on it.

The fact that there are only two popular games written in Java is probably the clearest sign that client Java is dead.

Okay, to be fair, it's "Java as a language to write games" that is dead. Java clients are a little less dead, but they still smell a bit funny.

-- 

Cédric

[Ben Smith-Mannschott]

Tribal Trouble?

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "The Java Posse" group.

> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/6KxmzCtTec0J.

[Kirk]

I don't know.. I still see client Java being used all over the place. In fact I just got off a call from lead that who's client is pure Java. I know many more similar cases.

Regards,

Kirk

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.

[phil swenson]

Seems like the only widespread use for java clients are enterprise
apps and dev tools. And enterprise clients are becoming less and less
relevant IMO - enterprise is going web only.

anecdotally: I use 4: IDEA, Eclipse, DB Visualizer, and Spark.

So 3 dev tools and 1 enterprise.

[Joseph Ottinger]

I use a few things:

IDEA, Eclipse, my company's own platform, Freeplane, ThinkingRock, and a VST that uses Java. There may be more on my HD but I don't use them very often if so (or I don't know about it.) Freeplane, ThinkingRock, and the VST are pretty handy tools I run all the time, though.

Joseph B. Ottinger
http://enigmastation.com

[Carl Jokl]

I think my remarks might benefit with some qualification. I think the client popularity should be looked at in relative terms. Java was never a big player in hardcore or Triple A title games even back when Java was all the buzz. The fact that the developers of Mincraft and Spiral Knights have developed games recently and made a conscious choice to use Java, I think at least is quite something. Obviously these organisations did not think that Java client was dead or not worth bothering.

What about the end result? Spiral Knights is graphically really beautiful. It is fast and pretty stable. It is a far cry from a butt ugly swing app. If I didn't know it was written in Java there is nothing about it that would make me think it wasn't some kind of native or slick flash app.

In some respects this is a bigger deal for showing what Java can do in the right hands that some of the JavaFX demos which while impressive were frequently quite flaky.

[Steel City Phantom]

im currently working on a $500k java financial integration project, with two ~$750k projects in the wings right afterwards.  if java is dead, i like it.  =-)

--
You want it fast, cheap, or right.  Pick two!!

[Chris Adamson]

Sorry to say, but this is pretty much what people have been saying
about desktop Java for a good 10 years now

The fact that the most substantial uses of desktop Java have been Java
IDEs (whose appeal is, by definition, to Java developers) doesn't
inspire a lot of confidence.

Google for "killer java app" and (aside from blogs saying there is no
killer java app) the top hits are from about 5 years ago:
http://scobleizer.com/2007/03/20/steve-jobs-alert-killer-java-app-for-iphone/
http://wendong.ngphone.com/another-top-10-java-mobile-killer-apps/
Even though I was still working in desktop Java at that time, I don't
recognize or remember *any* of these apps.

The "we just need a killer app to turn things around" mindset is a
sign of desperation. Stop waiting for Godot, Mr. Right, and Roxy
Carmichael. They're not coming.

At any rate, all the action in Java has moved over to Android, whose
app count and user base surely outnumbers desktop Java's by many
orders of magnitude. Swing and SWT have both lost, to android.view.

It could be argued that the point of desktop Java at this time is
largely just to keep NetBeans, IDEA, and Eclipse running. The latter
of which is used to write Android apps. And I think we can all
accurately estimate Apple's interest in investing engineering
resources into helping developers create apps for the Android
platform.

--Chris

[work only]

Hi

I tried to run a Java program and Lion asked me would I like to install "Java 1.6.0_26 " and the PATH was set for Terminal, it just worked and all my Java IDE's (NetBeans, IDEA, and Eclipse)  worked.

No errors at all.

Paul


 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.

[Reinier Zwitserloot]

A recent all-java client app that could be considered 'killer' is of course Minecraft, though I rather doubt that's what you had in mind.

[Igor Khotin]

Hi

Vuze bittorrent client could be considered as a popular Java app.

Some Java games:
Minecraft
Tribe Trouble
RunScape - is one of the most popular free to play MMOs
Three Rings use Java for number of their MMOs - Spiral Knights, Puzzle
Pirates, Bang! Howdy...

RunScape, Minecraft, Vuze probably could be considered as killer apps,
but I don't think they would make any difference on the desktop. The
problem is not with functional capabilities, but with attitude of
desktop/game developers. Game development is a quite conservative
business and still C++ dominated. Recently C# is getting into the
picture with XNA. Java would need some rich framework like XNA + a lot
of marketing/evangelism to penetrate into the gamedev at this point.
All we got now is JMonkey, Ardor3D, Xith3D and Slick - none of these
could provide compete stack to simplify development (although JMonkey
is moving in that direction). And Android shows that developers are
willing to write client apps and games in Java if proper environment
and support available.

However, as already mentioned in this thread, one could argue why to
bother with desktop? Since it is dying anyway and development is
moving toward web and mobile platforms.

Igor

[Ricky Clarkson]

> However, as already mentioned in this thread, one could argue why to
> bother with desktop? Since it is dying anyway and development is
> moving toward web and mobile platforms.

It's only dying because there's no security model protecting your data
from a rogue program you install. If and when the OSs fix that we can
drop JavaScript on its head like we tried to do >10 years ago.

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Igor Khotin <chaos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Vuze bittorrent client could be considered as a popular Java app.
>
> Some Java games:
> Minecraft
> Tribe Trouble
> RunScape - is one of the most popular free to play MMOs
> Three Rings use Java for number of their MMOs - Spiral Knights, Puzzle
> Pirates, Bang! Howdy...
>
> RunScape, Minecraft, Vuze probably could be considered as killer apps,
> but I don't think they would make any difference on the desktop. The
> problem is not with functional capabilities, but with attitude of
> desktop/game developers. Game development is a quite conservative
> business and still C++ dominated. Recently C# is getting into the
> picture with XNA. Java would need some rich framework like XNA + a lot
> of marketing/evangelism to penetrate into the gamedev at this point.
> All we got now is JMonkey, Ardor3D, Xith3D and Slick - none of these
> could provide compete stack to simplify development (although JMonkey
> is moving in that direction). And Android shows that developers are
> willing to write client apps and games in Java if proper environment
> and support available.
>
>

> Igor
>
> On Jul 24, 5:48 am, Reinier Zwitserloot <reini...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A recent all-java client app that could be considered 'killer' is of course
>> Minecraft, though I rather doubt that's what you had in mind.
>

[opinali]

Security (as much as we techies care about it) has zero relevance to
the health of desktop Java. Java's security model is at least,
indisputably much better than that of any non-managed language (i.e.
better than zero), and I never heard anyone claiming that C/C++ are
dead/dying because of security.

Java does not need a killer app, or even a handful of killer apps -
hoping that a few incredibly-popular apps would boost the platform is
the wrong kind of hope to have; the whole concept of killer app is
wrong IMO... what could a killer app buy us? We already have quasi-
ubiquitous JRE deployment, and we already have massive developer
adoption; so we just don't need the main benefits that "killer apps"
promise to new languages/platforms. We already got that, and it's not
enough...

What desktop Java needs is killer capabilities. It must gain the
functionality and/or performance that it has always missed for general
client-side success. Google actually managed to pull this out with
Android; now Android is not JavaSE, but it is Java (or close enough),
and it shows that the solution for client Java requires breaking a
little with the past and dropping significant amount of legacy crap
(including 100% of its traditional UI-related libraries). It also
shows that the hope to make Java successful for clients by fixing its
clunkier bits is not wishful thinking, that plan has succeeded
wonderfully for Android.

Now you know where I'm heading to: Sun/Oracle's plan to revive desktop
Java with JavaFX. It's basically the same recipe as Android's, with
massive replacement of legacy where necessary, and also significant
work in the runtime (including abandon of "pure Java" religion; just
like Android's frameworks, JavaFX includes tons of native code, and it
has a much saner approach to multiplatform support and evolution). I
don't claim that the plan will work, only time will tell as we are
still waiting for the de-facto v1.0 release. I'm only saying that (on
the technical side) JavaFX 2.0 already does all the right moves; if
this doesn't work, nothing will, so the debate about a possible
rebirth of desktop Java will be over in one way or another.

A+
Osvaldo

[Ricky Clarkson]

> Java's security model is at least,
> indisputably much better than that of any non-managed language (i.e.
> better than zero)

Only in applets. Java desktop applications can do anything a C program can.

> I never heard anyone claiming that C/C++ are
> dead/dying because of security.

It's desktop apps that seem to be dying, not particularly Java ones.

[Phil]

Jaikoz is also Java based...

I was a bit perturbed how the Lion upgrade removed a pre-existing Java
installation (OK it was the Apple one but I didn't expect them to
actively remove it) and my Mercurial installation (which was installed
from a dmg). There may be other things missing but I've not found them
yet.

I've put off paying for the Lion Server upgrade until I know what will
happen with Tomcat and the deployed Java applications running on it.

[opinali]

On Jul 24, 11:43 am, Ricky Clarkson <ricky.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Java's security model is at least,
> > indisputably much better than that of any non-managed language (i.e.
> > better than zero)
> Only in applets.  Java desktop applications can do anything a C program can.

Not 100% true. First, there's WebStart too (I know JAWS its not a
rocking success either - but it could be, if the resulting apps run
well enough). Second, even for conventionally-installed Java apps you
can enforce as much of the security model as you want - unfortunately
there's no standard mechanism to perform local Java app installations
in a secured way, so the app advertises required permissions etc.
(again see Android)... this could be fixed, but it's hard because it
would require some integration with OS-native installation services so
app providers cannot circumvent the system.

For both Java and native apps, it's certainly possible to limit
permissions of locally installed apps; it's only not possible to
enforce this so users cannot install something without knowing about,
and explicitly granting the required permissions. For native apps you
can do like Google Chrome - multi-process model, self-restriction of
privileges on a per-process basis. Java apps can do exactly the same,
except that it's all easier and more lightweight (does not require
multiple processes), so arguably there is some advantage for Java even
in this case...

A+
Osvaldo

[Ricky Clarkson]

For the average computer user, Java's this thing that pops up asking
to update itself (and how many clicks does this actually take?), but
they don't know what it is.

They're not going to know that it's actually safe to install certain
Java apps, and even if it is, those Java apps won't be able to do any
typical desktop tasks such as playing video. For that we (currently)
need to be able to call out to native code not supplied with the JVM.

The problem, I believe, needs addressing at the OS level, though every
little helps on the Java end.

[work only]

Funny thing is that the first program what needed Java was XCode :)