Yes multiple version of Java SDK can be installed at the same time. However if you have an environmental variable, It can only be pointed to one version at a time.
-Mark -----Original Message----- From: Tom Chiverton [mailto:t...@extravision.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:55 AM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: Installer Revisited You can have multiple different JDK versions at once can't you ? Even on Windows ? I didn't think we were suggesting not having a GUI installer for the SDK, just that under the hood it would call an ant task ? Tom On 17/12/2013 14:46, Nicholas Kwiatkowski wrote: > Sure, having Java installed is pretty standard now-a-days, but the bigger > question is -- which Java? My development machine at work is locked to the > 1.5 JDK as the default because they use some crazy Oracle Forms app. This > is the same with the other 25 developers in my division. > > This means installing ant and getting it to work right is a constant game > of 'wack-a-mole' as far as JDK versions. > > All in all, I'm in favor of keeping the AIR installer. Maybe we supply an > ANT script for the linux folks but I like the feeling of the > eat-your-own-dogfood installer. Not only does it remove a whole lot of > hurdles (remember before we had the installer, and all the crazy steps our > newbies had to follow in order to even download the full SDK?), but it is > clean, easy to use and works very well. Just supplying an ANT script is > fine for the hard-core developers, but we will lose out too all the folks > that want a true 1-click install (the type Adobe used to provide). > > -Nick > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Maurice Amsellem < > maurice.amsel...@systar.com> wrote: > >>> I don't think we can expect Java to be installed on our end user machines. >> On end-users machines, no. >> But I would expect the Installer / SDK to be installed by developers, not >> "end-users". >> Having Java installed on a developer machine is almost a requirement >> nowadays, whatever language you are working with. >> >> Don't you think so? >> >> Maurice >> >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : omup...@gmail.com [mailto:omup...@gmail.com] De la part de OmPrakash >> Muppirala >> Envoyé : lundi 16 décembre 2013 20:15 >> À : dev@flex.apache.org >> Objet : Re: Installer Revisited >> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >>> That's interesting. >>> >>> On Mac, folks are given a dmg file that essentially installs the >>> installer and I don't believe it requires that AIR is already >>> installed. Or am I wrong about that? >>> >> Yes, no need for an AIR install. The installer has the runtime packaged >> with it. >> >> >>> On Linux, you're saying the package we create still requires a >>> separate install of AIR? >>> >>> I'm not a huge fan of the "install the installer" experience. I don't >>> know if there is an alternative when using AIR. That's one reason why >>> I'm hoping to leverage the installer to be able to install other >>> Apache Flex stuff (and maybe other stuff as well). It looks like >>> node.js has a package manager that sort of does the same thing. So >>> does cygwin setup on Windows. >>> >> The way the Installer was designed was to minimize the number of updates, >> but rather to drive all the actions via the config xml as much as possible. >> In that spirit, driving it off of an Ant (ish) xml file makes much more >> sense. >> >> A lot of software does the 'install the installer' these days. As long as >> it is a one click process (which our Installer is), we should'nt worry >> about it too much, IMHO. >> >> >>> But having to install AIR separately on Linux would be annoying. >> >> On Linux, we can probably assume that Ant is already installed, or just a >> 'yum install' away from being available. That way, they can just use the >> ant script just as well. >> >> >>> Can we >>> count on Java being on every OS? I heard it isn't on WinXP. Do we >>> need to support that? >>> >> I don't think we can expect Java to be installed on our end user machines. >> >> Thanks, >> Om >> >> >>> -Alex >>> >>> On 12/16/13 2:49 AM, "Tom Chiverton" <t...@extravision.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 16/12/2013 10:44, Maurice Amsellem wrote: >>>>>> AIR isn't required for*using* the SDK one it is built, right ? >>>>> Do you mean AIR runtime, or AIR SDK ? >>>>> >>>>> Maurice >>>> AIR the runtime. >>>> Assuming I don't target an AIR application, then I suppose the AIR >>>> SDK is required, but this is installed by the installer. >>>> >>>> Tom >>> > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. > For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com > ______________________________________________________________________
