On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 5:47 AM, janI <j...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 7 August 2013 14:02, Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 07:54:55 -0400
> > Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
> > > <orwittm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I would like to discuss here, if we drop the support for Java 5 and
> > Java 6
> > > > for AOO installation on Windows.
> > > > Important note for discussion: it is all about platform Windows.
> > > >
> > > > On my work to update the AOO build environment for Windows I
> > recognized that
> > > > it is hard to get an official JDK 1.5 (Java 5) or JDK 1.6 (Java 6)
> for
> > > > Windows. Thus, I decided to go with JDK 1.7. The resulting AOO
> > installation
> > > > on Windows no longer works together with an JRE 6. It does not
> > recognize an
> > > > installed JRE 6 as an valid Java runtime environment.
> > > > Thus, it comes into my mind to drop the support for Java 5 and Java 6
> > for
> > > > Windows.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Another perspective to consider: What leads to the most secure build
> > > environment for our binaries? I don't think we want to ever be
> > > building binaries that millions of users download, that are built on a
> > > machine with an unsupported JRE that is no longer receiving security
> > > patches. A build machine should be full patched against known
> > > security issues. And of course it should be used only for building,
> > > not for daily email and web browsing.
> > >
> > > So I think we should use JDK 1.7 for our builds. If that breaks Java
> > > 5 and Java 6 compatibility for end users, then this is unfortunate,
> > > but justifiable.
> > >
> > > We'll face a similar issue of this sort in April 2014, when Windows XP
> > > reaches End of Support by Microsoft. Do we then continue to support
> > > AOO on XP? Do we test with it? Perhaps. But we certainly would not
> > > build our binaries on XP, right?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > -Rob
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Some discussion already took place in the thread about my update on
> > the AOO
> > > > build environment for Windows. Here are the original statements:
> > > > <cite>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> From Oliver:
> > > >>>>> On a Windows system with JRE 6 the installation of my build does
> > not
> > > >>>>> recognize installed JRE 6 as an Java runtime environment (Menu -
> > Tools
> > > >>>>> -
> > > >>>>> Option - Java). This is no problem from my point of view as our
> > Windows
> > > >>>>> users should not have JRE 6 installed anymore on their systems
> due
> > to
> > > >>>>> its security risks. Does somebody contradicts?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> From Andrea:
> > > >>>> As far as I know, this would be a significant limitation. We can
> now
> > > >>>> build with Java 5, 6 or 7 and the build can work with Java 5, 6
> or 7
> > > >>>> (regardless of the version used for building). Restricting this
> > would
> > > >>>> require discussion, especially on less common platforms.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> From Oliver:
> > > >>> I agree that it would be a restriction, but due to the security
> > risks of
> > > >>> Oracle's JRE 6 I do not think that such a restriction hurts. In
> > contrast
> > > >>> it would 'help' our Windows users to update their Java environment.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thus, let us start a new thread to discuss this topic.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> FromJürgen:
> > > >> we should think how relevant it is and if we have more work to
> support
> > > >> it. As Oliver pointed out, the latest security problems of Java
> result
> > > >> in probably many updated systems. I don't see that Java 5 or 6 is
> > > >> important in the future and we should focus on the future.
> > > >
> > > > </cite>
> > > >
> > > > My arguements for a drop of the Java 5 and Java 6 support on Windows
> > are:
> > > > - JRE 5 is quite old and no longer officially available
> > > > - JRE 6 is no longer officially available
> > > > - JRE 6 has certain security risks and the corresponding tools on
> > Widnows
> > > > are reporting to update to JRE 7
> > > > - Simplify our work as we do not need to test under Windows JRE 5 and
> > JRE 6
> > > >
> > > > I currently see no need to support JRE 5 or JRE 6 in our future
> > releases for
> > > > Windows.
> > > >
> > > > Let us discuss openly more Pros and Cons on this topic.
> >
> > I see no objection to future AOO releases requiring at least Java 1.7;
> > ideally I would wish it continued to support XP (I suppose Win 2K is too
> > much to hope for?).
> >
>
> I am all in favour of remove java 1.5 and 1.6 from our build environment,
> as they are a security risk. But we should exploit if its possible to use
> java 1.7 for build and accept java 5,6,7 as runtime.
>
I think we should drop java 1.6 and less for both build and runtime
requirements on ALL builds, not just Windows. I don't really know at this
point what the differences are on the buld vs runtime business, but I would
almost bet there will be some cases -- maybe many -- in which a build with
higher java can NOT be run with lower jvm.
> I have looked a bit in the code (I am no java guru), and I can see the APIs
> differentiate. We could overcome that with a couple of if statements
> (testing for version), question is do we also want to force our customers
> to use java 1.7 ?
>
Yes, I think this would be wise given security and performance
considerations.
>
> rgds
> jan I.
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
Success is falling nine times and getting up ten."
-- Jon Bon Jovi
