java access bridge
webczat_200 at poczta.onet.pl
Sun Dec 16 00:44:52 UTC 2018
But here it is the screenreader that is 32 bit and requires 32 bit dll.
But this 32 bit dll is applicable for a 64 bit jre. If I would remove
the 32 bit jre and install only that dll, then accessibility would be
working on every java app even running a 64 bit jre. So it is a specific
case. Othervise I do not need a full 32 bit jre. Also this specific file
is to be put in c:\windows\syswow64... Also it is not so easy to find
those 32 bit builds, I've tried and didn't find the link you gave me
before. And the screenreader intentionally does not have a 64 bit
version and probably never will.
W dniu 16.12.2018 o 01:30, Andrew Luo pisze:
> By "applicable to both", right, it is possible that you might have WoW64 programs on Windows x64 that need 32-bit JRE DLLs. But it has always been the case that 32-bit applications (even on x64) will need a 32-bit JRE (for example Java web start, which is now deprecated - but previously, if you had a 32-bit browser you needed a 32-bit JRE, x64 browser = x64 JRE). I don't find this particularly unreasonable, as it is pretty common for 32-bit and x64 software to be packaged and distributed separately. Then users can have a choice (32-bit only, 64-bit only, or both). Many people (me included) don't have any need for a 32-bit JRE since 64-bit has been around for a long time and the majority of apps come in both flavors (or even x64 only), so I personally don't want to "bloat" the 64-bit distro with 32-bit binaries that the majority of users won't need.
> But anyways this is only my individual perspective. If there's other people who want to chime in, perhaps with reasons in support of this change, I'm happy to hear them.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michał Zegan <webczat_200 at poczta.onet.pl>
> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2018 2:58 PM
> To: Andrew Luo <andrewluotechnologies at outlook.com>; jdk-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: java access bridge
> Ok, maybe there are. however because the 32 bit dll is applicable for both, and there is no other reason to install this 32 bit jre than to have this dll in place, I believe it is actually reasonable to include it in 64 bit version too. I mean ideally both 64 and 32 bit dlls would be installed in this case.
> W dniu 15.12.2018 o 23:44, Andrew Luo pisze:
>> The official OpenJDK builds don't have 32-bit builds, but there are other vendors out there that supply 32-bit builds:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michał Zegan <webczat_200 at poczta.onet.pl>
>> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2018 2:38 PM
>> To: Andrew Luo <andrewluotechnologies at outlook.com>;
>> jdk-dev at openjdk.java.net
>> Subject: Re: java access bridge
>> Maybe because such a version doesn't exist? I cannot find 32 bit jdk anymore at least for jdk11, and I know it is not officially supported.
>> W dniu 15.12.2018 o 23:16, Andrew Luo pisze:
>>> Hi Michal,
>>> Why can't you install both 32-bit and 64-bit JREs on those machines - doesn't that solve the problem without having to change the OpenJDK?
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: jdk-dev <jdk-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net> On Behalf Of Michal
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2018 2:09 PM
>>> To: jdk-dev at openjdk.java.net
>>> Subject: java access bridge
>>> Not sure where to direct this question, but in any case:
>>> On windows, java (jdk11) has java access bridge inside, the bridge allowing screenreaders to be used on java swing apps.
>>> There exists only a 64 bit version of java 11, and java access bridge can be enabled there. Screenreader communicates with a dll probably called c:\windows\system32\WindowsAccessBridge64.dll.
>>> There is however a problem: at least one of the popular screenreaders
>>> 32 bit screenreader *only*. That means java access bridge becomes unusable with it because of the missing 32 bit version of the above dll.
>>> However it is proven that if that dll was installed, accessibility would work. Is it possible to add to jdk11 or later the 32 bit dll too?
More information about the jdk-dev