Kevin Jones wrote:
>
> > - The JAVA_HOME env variable is no longer needed (instead, it looks in the
> > registry to get the JDK path).
>
> The problem with this is that when you install the JDK you end up with two
> JREs. So Java developers may have JAVA_HOME pointed at c:\jdk1.3.1 (say) and
> the registry is pointing at c:\program files\JavaSoft\JRE\1.3.1 (or
> similar). This means that adding jars to c:\jdk1.3.1\jre\lib\ext would not
> work if tomcat is looking for the JRE through the registry.
>
> I would prefer to see a check for JAVA_HOME and if that's not set then look
> in the registry. Or, if both the registry and JAVA_HOME is set, offer the
> user the choice. If you've already done this then ignore my ramblings!
Yep. On my Win9x boxes, I usually end up setting JAVA_HOME it in my
autoexec.bat; so yes, my registry is probably wrong. And yes, I know
there is probably a better way of setting env variables, but most of us
non-Windoze types stick to what we know and don't poke around any
further than absolutely necessary. On my NT boxes, I set it in
Settings/Control Panel/Environment, and I have no idea where that goes
(probably registry, but who knows).
Anyway, I agree it probably would be best to give an env variable
precedence over the registry setting. I, personally, would go so far as
to say that it would be expected behavior to simple use the env var
value (if present) without even checking the registry, as anyone who
manually sets that variable would presumably know what he/she is doing.
But I suppose that giving the user a choice would be another valid way
to go.
Just my $.02
- Christopher
