Why static_jli for java/javaw on Windows?

[Magnus Ihse Bursie]

On 2018-09-14 10:50, Markus Gronlund wrote:
> Hi Magnus, Erik and Alan,
>
> Came to think of this issue in relation to this discussion:
>
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8207139
>
> It might provide some additional information, especially since it describes an issue we recently ran into that was related to  static linking.
Thanks Markus!

Just to be clear that I read this correctly: Changing libjli from static 
to dynamic did not introduce a problem for you, instead it actually 
*solved* a problem? (If so, that's even more argument to skip the static 
linking)

/Magnus

>
> Thanks
> Markus
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Magnus Ihse Bursie
> Sent: den 14 september 2018 09:22
> To: Erik Joelsson <erik.joelsson at oracle.com>; Alan Bateman <alan.bateman at oracle.com>; core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Cc: build-dev <build-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> Subject: Re: Why static_jli for java/javaw on Windows?
>
>
> On 2018-09-14 01:17, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>> I checked and the copying of java.exe was done in the now legacy jre
>> installer, so from what I can tell, there is no longer a need for
>> static linking.
> Sounds good. I agree with your reasoning, it seems the main concern was the copy to the system directory. A second point was raised in private, that the old system of letting the java launcher select another version to launch, could be behind this. Neither this system is kept anymore.
>
> Thanks for all input!
>
> /Magnus
>
>> /Erik
>>
>>
>> On 2018-09-13 09:14, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Reading that bug, it seems the problem is when the installer copies
>>> java.exe into the Windows system directory. In that case, it may not
>>> have access to the msvcr re-distributables. I will try to find out if
>>> our installers are still doing this.
>>>
>>> /Erik
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2018-09-13 06:32, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 13/09/2018 14:07, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently, someone was trying to get rid of dll dependencies from
>>>>> java.exe. Why that would be desirable it does not say. Neither why
>>>>> this should not apply to all other launchers. (Perhaps there were
>>>>> not that many in these days?)
>>>>>
>>>>> Do anyone think this still seems relevant? Otherwise I'd like to
>>>>> get rid of this hack, and link java and javaw just like all the
>>>>> other launchers.
>>>>>
>>>> I don't know if it is still needed but it seems to be related to the
>>>> upgrade to VC 7 and an issue related to redistribution issue of the
>>>> MS runtime. JDK-6282039 and JDK-6382014 have some info on this.
>>>>
>>>> -Alan.