Why is the windows runtime/sdk only provided as .exe

[Nicolas Lorain]

I'm one of the Product Managers for JavaFX, and I had originally posted 
my answer as a comment to the Jira issue Tom had re-opened (RT-18807 
<http://javafx-jira.kenai.com/browse/RT-18807>)

We completely get what you are saying, and why you are asking for it, 
and as a matter of fact we've been making available zip files for the 
JavaFX 2.1 developer previews almost as soon as Tom initially requested. 
We actually may have done this so fast that we didn't double-checked 
whether zip files were actually provided for Java SE (they aren't, and 
they've never been).

However, when it comes to something that will be supported as part if 
the GA version of the product, such a request needs to be implemented 
consistently across platforms, take into account any additional testing 
efforts, and get the buy-in of Oracle's support organization. At this 
point, what we've been doing for the Developer Preview builds doesn't 
meet these demands.

I'm looking actively into this issue, and while my hope is to see this 
resolved soon, I believe a more realistic scenario is to expect to have 
a solution in place for JavaFX 2.2. I understand this seems like a long 
wait for what looks like a very simple packaging exercise, but JavaFX 
2.2 is just around the corner, and we want to make sure that whatever 
solution won't need to be revisited for every release of JavaFX.

As for supporting JavaFX on Java SE 6 (whether on Linux, Mac, or 
Windows), this is something that is only available for JavaFX on 
Windows), and we will no longer do past it November, which is when Java 
SE 6 will reach EOL 
(https://blogs.oracle.com/henrik/entry/updated_java_6_eol_date).

After that date, Oracle will no longer provide update releases or 
security fixes for Java SE, unless you work for a company that has a 
support plan in place with Oracle. If you don't have a support plan in 
place, you will still be able to use JavaFX 2.2 (Windows) on Java SE 6 
for as long as it's available in the Java archives, but that will be at 
your own risks

 From our point of view, releasing a version of JavaFX on a platform 
that is going to reach EOL within a few month is not something we plan 
to do, and this is pretty much the decision we've made with JavaFX 
2.1/JDK7 for Mac and Snow Leopard, as Apple will top supporting Mac OS 
10.6 as soon as 10.8 is released this summer.

Nicolas

On 5/10/12 5:57 AM, Adam Granger wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> My experience on the subject.... I work for a large software company,
> currently we do our GUIs with Swing. I did some R&D with JavaFX, and have
> been trying to push for its adoption...
>
>   - My only objections to the .exe distribution are that it requires admin
> to install - which most developers don't have - (a ridiculous corporate
> IT strategy!) and that the installation directory cannot be changed.
> Surely an advanced install option could be added allowing normal user
> install to a custom directory? I've zipped up c:\program
> files\oracle\JavaFX* from one machine and copied to another without
> issue, so whatever additional work the .exe is doing is unnecessary in
> our case...
>
>   - our target platform is Linux although some people use Windows as a dev
> environment. Things move slowly round here, I doubt we'll be moving to
> Java7 anytime soon, so a standalone JavaFX that works with Java6 on Linux
> would be essential for us to start using it. Are there any technical
> limitations as to why JavaFX2 cannot run with Java6 on Linux as it does
> on Windows?
>
> Regards,
>
> Adam.
>
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> This is a product management decision, based largely on two things:
>>
>> 1) Alignment with the JDK, which doesn't provide .zip files for Mac and
>> Windows
>>
>> 2) For Mac and Linux the only supported way to get JavaFX is bundled
>> with JDK7. We don't release / support an unbundled JavaFX on those
>> platforms. Going forward this will be true for Windows as well.
>> Standalone JavaFX 2.x bundles will continue to be released for Windows
>> to support JDK6. Developer preview releases will also continue to be
>> released as standalone bundles (including .zip).
>>
>> My understanding is that product management is looking into the
>> possibility of releasing JDK as a .zip bundle but they would need to
>> respond as what the status of that is.
>>
>> I have included Nicolas and Ajay on this who can speak to these issues.
>>
>> -- Kevin
>>
>>
>> Tom Schindl wrote:
>>> Hi Kevin,
>>>
>>> I'm replying here because I think more people who are interested in zips
>>> (e.g. anyone using maven!) are listening here.
>>>
>>> So you are stating in the bug that no zips will be provided anymore
>>> which I think is a very disappointing situation - I will and have to
>>> accept it.
>>>
>>> If you read through the mailing list threads how Richard, Jasper, ...
>>> advised to deploy JavaFX application they always stated that one should
>>> bundle it with the application (probably with the JRE which is a no go
>>> when we talk about Webstart).
>>>
>>> Without providing zips you force me to have:
>>> * Win32
>>> * Mac OS X>  10.7.0
>>> * Linux (in future)
>>>
>>> to extract the fxjar + native libs to repackage in my custom app. I know
>>> I need them anyways to test, ... but forcing me to do it manually
>>> instead of simply providing zip downloads is ridiculous (and because of
>>> the licensing stuff I one person in the world would have done and wants
>>> to share it with the rest of us he/she is not allowed).
>>>
>>> For me as a tooling vendor your current decision gives me headaches
>>> because I want and need to support multiple different
>>> SDK-Install-Styles:
>>> * Dev Preview install (done through zips with the structure in there)
>>>
>>> * JDK-7-Installs
>>>    =>  Not sure how they look like and I'm unable to test because I only
>>>       have OS-X 10.6.8
>>>
>>> * JDK-6
>>>
>>> When we take a look into the future this JDK-Exe install kind of thing
>>> is a deadend road because you'll stop viewing the JDK/JRE as an all in
>>> one thing installable through one .exe because of jigsaw.
>>>
>>> Anyways I appreciate that you took a look but I'm not happy with it and
>>> hope I can find a way around it until then I can only point people to
>>> the JIRA entry when they want to use e(fx)clipse os OS-X.
>>>
>>> Can anyone here tell me how the OS-X JDK-7-Installation structure looks
>>> like? Where am I supposed to find:
>>> * the javafxrt.jar
>>> * the dlls
>>> * the fx-javadoc
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> Am 08.05.12 15:43, schrieb Tom Schindl:
>>>
>>>> Haveing the SDK-zips will solve all my current problems. Thanks for
>>>> taking a Look.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>>>>
>>>> Am 08.05.2012 um 15:40 schrieb Kevin Rushforth
>>>> <kevin.rushforth at oracle.com>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>>
>>>>> I just looked and you are right...only see the .exe files were
>>>>> released for 2.1. I will check into this and get back to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Mac issue will be trickier since we don't have any tested /
>>>>> supported standalone bundles of JavaFX 2.1 on Mac. As a released
>>>>> product JavaFX 2.1 for Mac is only available as part of JDK 7u4.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Kevin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom Schindl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Kevin - can you take a look at this once more? Since the 2.1 release
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> zips for the SDKs are not available anymore!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One can only download the one for 2.2 so it looks like the
>>>>>> dev-release
>>>>>> site was adjusted but the GA site not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For those of use doing cross platform development and packaging
>>>>>> JavaFX
>>>>>> with their apps getting geting the releases as zips is something
>>>>>> really
>>>>>> important.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sidenote: Even worse because I'm still on OS-X 10.6.8 I can't even
>>>>>> install JavaFX because the JDK-7 release requires at least 10.7.0 (I
>>>>>> know you are not support JavaFX prior to JDK 7)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 04.01.12 17:37, schrieb Kevin Rushforth:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, maybe we don't actually release the SDK on the public web page
>>>>>>> either (I knew we didn't release the runtime as a zip since we don't
>>>>>>> even generate it internally).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- Kevin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tom Schindl wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Kevin,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well maybe I'm blind but for win32 the there is NO zip available
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> this page [1].
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only thing available currently as a zip is the OS-X SDK version
>>>>>>>> which misses the win32 native libs not? I'll file a JIRA.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1]http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javafx/downloads/devpreview-1429449.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 04.01.12 17:22, schrieb Kevin Rushforth:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Good question. The SDK is available as both an installer and a
>>>>>>>>> zip, and
>>>>>>>>> we could consider make the runtime available as a zip file as
>>>>>>>>> well, so
>>>>>>>>> please file a JIRA feature request for this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As for your other question, it is not currently possible to have
>>>>>>>>> 2.0.2
>>>>>>>>> and 2.1 instaled side-by-side.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- Kevin
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tom Schindl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now that since 2.0.2 (and also 2.1) are redistributeable it might
>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>> sense to provide them also as simple ZIP-Files.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I find it odd that if I want to package JavaFX with my product
>>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>>> first have to install something only my system, navigate to the
>>>>>>>>>> install
>>>>>>>>>> dir and copy over the stuff my own project directory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is it BTW possible to have 2.1 and 2.0.2 installed next to each
>>>>>>>>>> other? I
>>>>>>>>>> guess not which makes it hard to test with both versions on the
>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>> system, which would be made much more easy if provided as simple
>>>>>>>>>> ZIP-Files.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Would you mind providing JavaFX 2.1 binaries (and maybe also>
>>>>>>>>>> 2.0.2) as
>>>>>>>>>> a simple zip-File like you do it with 2.1 OS-X ones?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>