Auto-update of native application bundles

[Daniel Zwolenski]

A question for the JFX guys on JRE+JFX co-bundling:

Now that JFX is co-bundled in the JRE does that mean to upgrade to a newer
version of JFX we will need to upgrade our JDK/JRE each time, or do you
intend to have patch updates?

I guess ultimately my question is will the developer be able to mix and
match JRE and JFX versions or will it be a case of JREu6 is locked in to
have JFXb2.2, and if you want JFX2.3 then you have to upgrade to JREu7 (for
example, I'm just making up version numbers).


On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Daniel Zwolenski <zonski at googlemail.com>wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Dr. Michael Paus <mp at jugs.org> wrote:
>
>> Am 16.06.2012 12:43, schrieb Daniel Zwolenski:
>>
>>>
>>> Is your JRE really 20MB? If so that would be awesome, but I'm not sure
>>> how I managed to end up with such a massive one. I admit I have had about
>>> 50 different versions of JRE's + JDKs on this machine over the last 12
>>> months (every client I have has different  version requirements and half of
>>> them have legacy projects and require multiple JREs at the one site!).
>>>
>> I just downloaded the latest JRE7 offline installer from this web page:
>> http://www.oracle.com/**technetwork/java/javase/**
>> downloads/jre7-downloads-**1637588.html<http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/jre7-downloads-1637588.html>
>> The windows offline installers are almost exactly 20MB and if I
>> understood it correctly the also already contain JavaFX.
>> And as I already said, the size of this should be further reducible if
>> one would kick out everything that is not needed for an embedded JRE
>> but the Oracle guys should know that much better than I do.
>>
>> LG, Michael
>>
>
> Ah, ok. The JRE install is 20MB compressed but when you install it, it
> extracts to 90MB. So the reason my MSI is 30MB is due to the fact that the
> tools I am using are not compressing the files as effectively as whatever
> is used to build the JRE installer. I currently use the third party tool Advanced
> Installer <http://www.advancedinstaller.com/> to assemble my MSI. It does
> have an option to use LZMA compression, which might result in a smaller
> installer but I have to upgrade to the paid version for that.
>
> Since the ultimate goal will be to use Igor's MSI assembler, it's probably
> more important what compression algorithm is used by his tools. I notice
> that the Ensemble MSI produced from the new packaging tools is around 50MB
> as well, so I'm guessing Igor is doing a similar method of compression. I'm
> guessing that this is all done by WiX however, rather than code he has
> written directly. There is a 'CompressionLevel' attribute in WiX from the
> look of it - but I'm not sure what level Igor uses by default?
>
> On the topic of stripping stuff out to make the install smaller, this is
> definitely an option and something to look at long term. I did have a
> little look at this but since the compression was already dropping the size
> from 90MB to 30MB, I would have to strip out some significant chunks to
> make much impact on the resulting MSI (even more if we manage to compress
> it down to 20MB). Since the Java rt.jar is already 50MB, stripping out the
> other bits and pieces I could find was having very meagre gains. Killing
> "classes.jsa" might shave a few MB though, assuming this doesn't break
> anything. It's something to look into but is probably more important on
> Igor's end.
>
> I suspect the best answer we'll be able to manage on this topic will be:
> just put up with the larger download sizes for jre7 and await the magical
> wonder of jre8 (let's hope it delivers on its promise in this area!).
>
>
>
>
>