Re: About OpenJDK

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi all,

Adoptium Java 8 Update 302 (x86) is showing up:

https://adoptium.net/releases.html?variant=openjdk8=hotspot

Regards,

   Matthias

Am 17.08.21 um 17:59 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
> Hi Rony,
>
> Am 17.08.21 um 17:51 schrieb Rony G. Flatscher (Apache):
>> On 17.08.2021 17:37, Rony G. Flatscher (Apache) wrote:
>>> Hi Matthias,
>>>
>>> On 17.08.2021 16:10, Matthias Seidel wrote:
 Am 17.08.21 um 15:55 schrieb Rony G. Flatscher (Apache):
> On 16.08.2021 10:20, Bidouille wrote:
>> Hello team,
>>
>> Since july, AdoptOpenJDK has been renamed Adoptium JDK.
>> This project don't provide any JRE for Windows x86.
>> https://adoptium.net/releases.html
>>
>> So this will be a problem if AOO port x64 is not completed:
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=46594
> You may want to try
> 
>  which also
> includes JavaFX (which AdoptOpenJDK seems to ignore). (There are quite a 
> few Java OpenJDK sites
> which all use the same sources, depending on the site 32-bit Java 
> versions may be available or not.)
 See:

 https://adoptopenjdk.net/faq.html#openjfxfaq
>>> Yes, I know that statement, however it is not true, there are backports of 
>>> OpenJFX bug fixes exactly
>>> for that reason (also, OpenJFX has been using OpenJDK 11 as its baseline). 
>>> That is also the reason
>>> why others do support the "FX" and/or "FULL" versions. Not sure why they 
>>> state that, maybe no one
>>> re-checked or there are no resources for JFX available (which is actually 
>>> not necessary as one just
>>> has to add the four FX modules to a distribution and voilà they are 
>>> contained).
>>>
>>> ---rony
>> As an example, here one of the latest OpenJFX backport to OpenJDK 11:
> I am not that deep into Java, I only use AdoptOpenJDK to compile AOO. ;-)
>
> What JRE the user installs is up to him/her...
>
> Regards,
>
>    Matthias
>
>>  Forwarded Message 
>> Subject:     Re: [jfx11u] RFR: Request to backport July 2021 CPU changes
>> Date:     Tue, 20 Jul 2021 18:20:20 +0200
>> From:     Johan Vos 
>> To:     Kevin Rushforth 
>> CC:     openjfx-...@openjdk.java.net 
>>
>>
>> Approved.
>>
>> - Johan
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 6:01 PM Kevin Rushforth 
>> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Johan,
>> >
>> > I request approval to backport the changes from the just-released July
>> > 2021 CPU to jfx11u (for 11.0.12) .
>> >
>> > 
>> https://github.com/kevinrushforth/jfx11u/compare/db9b1b7440...cpu-2107-sync
>> >
>> > This is a straight backport (patch applies cleanly) of the one FX fix
>> > that went into the July CPU.
>> >
>> > NOTE: Since this is an integration of already-reviewed fixes, I will
>> > push it directly to the master branch of the jfx11u repo rather than 
>> via
>> > a pull request.
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > -- Kevin
>> >
>>
>> or
>>
>>  Forwarded Message 
>>
>> Subject: Request to backport 7 fixes to 11-dev for 11.0.11
>> Date:Tue, 2 Mar 2021 13:53:11 +0100
>> From:Johan Vos 
>> To:  openjfx-...@openjdk.java.net List 
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> I request permission to backport the following issues to 11-dev, for the
>> 11.0.11 release:
>>
>> JDK-8258592: Control labels in Dialogs are truncated at certain DPI 
>> scaling
>> levels
>>
>> JDK-8256283: IndexOutOfBoundsException when sorting a TreeTableView
>>
>> JDK-8165749: java.lang.RuntimeException: dndGesture.dragboard is null in
>> drag
>>
>> JDK-8249737: java.lang.RuntimeException: Too many touch points reported
>>
>> JDK-8252099: JavaFX does not render Myanmar script correctly
>>
>> JDK-8261460: Incorrect CSS applied to ContextMenu on DialogPane
>>
>> JDK-8248126: JavaFX ignores HiDPI scaling settings on some linux 
>> platforms
>>
>> - Johan
>>
>> ---rony
>>
>>
>>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: About OpenJDK

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Rony,

Am 17.08.21 um 17:51 schrieb Rony G. Flatscher (Apache):
> On 17.08.2021 17:37, Rony G. Flatscher (Apache) wrote:
>> Hi Matthias,
>>
>> On 17.08.2021 16:10, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>>> Am 17.08.21 um 15:55 schrieb Rony G. Flatscher (Apache):
 On 16.08.2021 10:20, Bidouille wrote:
> Hello team,
>
> Since july, AdoptOpenJDK has been renamed Adoptium JDK.
> This project don't provide any JRE for Windows x86.
> https://adoptium.net/releases.html
>
> So this will be a problem if AOO port x64 is not completed:
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=46594
 You may want to try
 
  which also
 includes JavaFX (which AdoptOpenJDK seems to ignore). (There are quite a 
 few Java OpenJDK sites
 which all use the same sources, depending on the site 32-bit Java versions 
 may be available or not.)
>>> See:
>>>
>>> https://adoptopenjdk.net/faq.html#openjfxfaq
>> Yes, I know that statement, however it is not true, there are backports of 
>> OpenJFX bug fixes exactly
>> for that reason (also, OpenJFX has been using OpenJDK 11 as its baseline). 
>> That is also the reason
>> why others do support the "FX" and/or "FULL" versions. Not sure why they 
>> state that, maybe no one
>> re-checked or there are no resources for JFX available (which is actually 
>> not necessary as one just
>> has to add the four FX modules to a distribution and voilà they are 
>> contained).
>>
>> ---rony
> As an example, here one of the latest OpenJFX backport to OpenJDK 11:

I am not that deep into Java, I only use AdoptOpenJDK to compile AOO. ;-)

What JRE the user installs is up to him/her...

Regards,

   Matthias

>
>  Forwarded Message 
> Subject:     Re: [jfx11u] RFR: Request to backport July 2021 CPU changes
> Date:     Tue, 20 Jul 2021 18:20:20 +0200
> From:     Johan Vos 
> To:     Kevin Rushforth 
> CC:     openjfx-...@openjdk.java.net 
>
>
> Approved.
>
> - Johan
>
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 6:01 PM Kevin Rushforth 
> 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Johan,
> >
> > I request approval to backport the changes from the just-released July
> > 2021 CPU to jfx11u (for 11.0.12) .
> >
> > 
> https://github.com/kevinrushforth/jfx11u/compare/db9b1b7440...cpu-2107-sync
> >
> > This is a straight backport (patch applies cleanly) of the one FX fix
> > that went into the July CPU.
> >
> > NOTE: Since this is an integration of already-reviewed fixes, I will
> > push it directly to the master branch of the jfx11u repo rather than via
> > a pull request.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > -- Kevin
> >
>
> or
>
>  Forwarded Message 
>
> Subject:  Request to backport 7 fixes to 11-dev for 11.0.11
> Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 13:53:11 +0100
> From: Johan Vos 
> To:   openjfx-...@openjdk.java.net List 
>
>
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> I request permission to backport the following issues to 11-dev, for the
> 11.0.11 release:
>
> JDK-8258592: Control labels in Dialogs are truncated at certain DPI 
> scaling
> levels
>
> JDK-8256283: IndexOutOfBoundsException when sorting a TreeTableView
>
> JDK-8165749: java.lang.RuntimeException: dndGesture.dragboard is null in
> drag
>
> JDK-8249737: java.lang.RuntimeException: Too many touch points reported
>
> JDK-8252099: JavaFX does not render Myanmar script correctly
>
> JDK-8261460: Incorrect CSS applied to ContextMenu on DialogPane
>
> JDK-8248126: JavaFX ignores HiDPI scaling settings on some linux platforms
>
> - Johan
>
> ---rony
>
>
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: About OpenJDK

[Rony G. Flatscher (Apache)]

On 17.08.2021 17:37, Rony G. Flatscher (Apache) wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> On 17.08.2021 16:10, Matthias Seidel wrote:
>> Am 17.08.21 um 15:55 schrieb Rony G. Flatscher (Apache):
>>> On 16.08.2021 10:20, Bidouille wrote:
 Hello team,

 Since july, AdoptOpenJDK has been renamed Adoptium JDK.
 This project don't provide any JRE for Windows x86.
 https://adoptium.net/releases.html

 So this will be a problem if AOO port x64 is not completed:
 https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=46594
>>> You may want to try
>>> 
>>>  which also
>>> includes JavaFX (which AdoptOpenJDK seems to ignore). (There are quite a 
>>> few Java OpenJDK sites
>>> which all use the same sources, depending on the site 32-bit Java versions 
>>> may be available or not.)
>> See:
>>
>> https://adoptopenjdk.net/faq.html#openjfxfaq
> Yes, I know that statement, however it is not true, there are backports of 
> OpenJFX bug fixes exactly
> for that reason (also, OpenJFX has been using OpenJDK 11 as its baseline). 
> That is also the reason
> why others do support the "FX" and/or "FULL" versions. Not sure why they 
> state that, maybe no one
> re-checked or there are no resources for JFX available (which is actually not 
> necessary as one just
> has to add the four FX modules to a distribution and voilà they are 
> contained).
>
> ---rony

As an example, here one of the latest OpenJFX backport to OpenJDK 11:

 Forwarded Message 
Subject:     Re: [jfx11u] RFR: Request to backport July 2021 CPU changes
Date:     Tue, 20 Jul 2021 18:20:20 +0200
From:     Johan Vos 
To:     Kevin Rushforth 
CC:     openjfx-...@openjdk.java.net 


Approved.

- Johan

On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 6:01 PM Kevin Rushforth 
wrote:

> Hi Johan,
>
> I request approval to backport the changes from the just-released July
> 2021 CPU to jfx11u (for 11.0.12) .
>
> 
https://github.com/kevinrushforth/jfx11u/compare/db9b1b7440...cpu-2107-sync
>
> This is a straight backport (patch applies cleanly) of the one FX fix
> that went into the July CPU.
>
> NOTE: Since this is an integration of already-reviewed fixes, I will
> push it directly to the master branch of the jfx11u repo rather than via
> a pull request.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -- Kevin
>

or

 Forwarded Message 

Subject:Request to backport 7 fixes to 11-dev for 11.0.11
Date:   Tue, 2 Mar 2021 13:53:11 +0100
From:   Johan Vos 
To: openjfx-...@openjdk.java.net List 



Hi Kevin,

I request permission to backport the following issues to 11-dev, for the
11.0.11 release:

JDK-8258592: Control labels in Dialogs are truncated at certain DPI scaling
levels

JDK-8256283: IndexOutOfBoundsException when sorting a TreeTableView

JDK-8165749: java.lang.RuntimeException: dndGesture.dragboard is null in
drag

JDK-8249737: java.lang.RuntimeException: Too many touch points reported

JDK-8252099: JavaFX does not render Myanmar script correctly

JDK-8261460: Incorrect CSS applied to ContextMenu on DialogPane

JDK-8248126: JavaFX ignores HiDPI scaling settings on some linux platforms

- Johan

---rony

Re: About OpenJDK

[Rony G. Flatscher (Apache)]

On 17.08.2021 15:59, Bidouille wrote:
>> You may want to try
>> 
>> which also
>> includes JavaFX (which AdoptOpenJDK seems to ignore).
> Thanks for this resource.
> But it provide only a ZIP and not an EXE.
> So, it's a pain for end-users to install this.

Yes, for end users this might be too much.

---rony

P.S.:

OTOH it is quite simple: unzip the zip archive and set the environment variable 
JAVA_HOME to it and
it gets used. This also makes it possible to have multiple versions of Java on 
the same machine and
just switch among them by changing JAVA_HOME.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: About OpenJDK

[Rony G. Flatscher (Apache)]

Hi Matthias,

On 17.08.2021 16:10, Matthias Seidel wrote:
> Am 17.08.21 um 15:55 schrieb Rony G. Flatscher (Apache):
>> On 16.08.2021 10:20, Bidouille wrote:
>>> Hello team,
>>>
>>> Since july, AdoptOpenJDK has been renamed Adoptium JDK.
>>> This project don't provide any JRE for Windows x86.
>>> https://adoptium.net/releases.html
>>>
>>> So this will be a problem if AOO port x64 is not completed:
>>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=46594
>> You may want to try
>> 
>>  which also
>> includes JavaFX (which AdoptOpenJDK seems to ignore). (There are quite a few 
>> Java OpenJDK sites
>> which all use the same sources, depending on the site 32-bit Java versions 
>> may be available or not.)
> See:
>
> https://adoptopenjdk.net/faq.html#openjfxfaq

Yes, I know that statement, however it is not true, there are backports of 
OpenJFX bug fixes exactly
for that reason (also, OpenJFX has been using OpenJDK 11 as its baseline). That 
is also the reason
why others do support the "FX" and/or "FULL" versions. Not sure why they state 
that, maybe no one
re-checked or there are no resources for JFX available (which is actually not 
necessary as one just
has to add the four FX modules to a distribution and voilà they are contained).

---rony



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: About OpenJDK

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Rony,

Am 17.08.21 um 15:55 schrieb Rony G. Flatscher (Apache):
> On 16.08.2021 10:20, Bidouille wrote:
>> Hello team,
>>
>> Since july, AdoptOpenJDK has been renamed Adoptium JDK.
>> This project don't provide any JRE for Windows x86.
>> https://adoptium.net/releases.html
>>
>> So this will be a problem if AOO port x64 is not completed:
>> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=46594
> You may want to try
> 
>  which also
> includes JavaFX (which AdoptOpenJDK seems to ignore). (There are quite a few 
> Java OpenJDK sites
> which all use the same sources, depending on the site 32-bit Java versions 
> may be available or not.)

See:

https://adoptopenjdk.net/faq.html#openjfxfaq

>
> However, in the meantime I think it to have become really important to also 
> offer a 64-bit Windows
> release of AOO.

Acknowledged! But that needs volunteers to work on the Windows code...

Regards,

   Matthias

>
> ---rony
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: About OpenJDK

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi,

Am 17.08.21 um 15:55 schrieb Bidouille:
>> Until then you can still download JDK 8 292 (x86) from:
>> https://adoptopenjdk.net/releases.html?variant=openjdk8=hotspot
> In the past, Sun was provided a full version with embedded JRE.

Oracle still provides that for Java 8?

> Maybe, this will be good to have a new build as this one?

My personal test builds for AOO42X are built with AdoptOpenJDK for a
long time.

For AOO41X we will not change the JDK. I am still not sure about coming
AOO42X releases...

Regards,

   Matthias

>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: About OpenJDK

[Bidouille]

> You may want to try
> 
> which also
> includes JavaFX (which AdoptOpenJDK seems to ignore).

Thanks for this resource.
But it provide only a ZIP and not an EXE.
So, it's a pain for end-users to install this.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: About OpenJDK

[Rony G. Flatscher (Apache)]

On 16.08.2021 10:20, Bidouille wrote:
> Hello team,
>
> Since july, AdoptOpenJDK has been renamed Adoptium JDK.
> This project don't provide any JRE for Windows x86.
> https://adoptium.net/releases.html
>
> So this will be a problem if AOO port x64 is not completed:
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=46594

You may want to try

 which also
includes JavaFX (which AdoptOpenJDK seems to ignore). (There are quite a few 
Java OpenJDK sites
which all use the same sources, depending on the site 32-bit Java versions may 
be available or not.)

However, in the meantime I think it to have become really important to also 
offer a 64-bit Windows
release of AOO.

---rony



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: About OpenJDK

[Bidouille]

> Until then you can still download JDK 8 292 (x86) from:
> https://adoptopenjdk.net/releases.html?variant=openjdk8=hotspot

In the past, Sun was provided a full version with embedded JRE.
Maybe, this will be good to have a new build as this one?

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: About OpenJDK

[Jörg Schmidt]

 

> -Original Message-
> From: Pedro Lino [mailto:pedro.l...@mailbox.org.INVALID] 
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 7:17 PM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: About OpenJDK


> > That said: Of course having AOO only a in 32-bit for 
> Windows isn't optimal.
> 
> 32-bit AOO is perfectly fine for most (all?) users. The 
> problem is that Microsoft convinced users that 64 is better 
> than 32 (using the same "bigger is better" logic vendors use 
> to sell digital cameras, mobile phones, etc.)

I fear the problems are deeper and Microsoft is now neglecting the 32-bit track 
in Windows 10 updates.
In any case, I have observed for years with professional AOO users, from the 
free economy, again and again, difficult to clarify, problems with AOO after 
Windows updates.
Workaround was already many times the use of older OpenOffice portable 
versions, but this is not a permanent solution. 


greetings,
Jörg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: About OpenJDK

[Pedro Lino]

Hi Matthias, all

> On 08/16/2021 3:24 PM Matthias Seidel  wrote:

> Until then you can still download JDK 8 292 (x86) from:
> 
> https://adoptopenjdk.net/releases.html?variant=openjdk8=hotspot
>

Or 301 from Oracle

https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/javase/javase-jdk8-downloads.html
 
> That said: Of course having AOO only a in 32-bit for Windows isn't optimal.

32-bit AOO is perfectly fine for most (all?) users. The problem is that 
Microsoft convinced users that 64 is better than 32 (using the same "bigger is 
better" logic vendors use to sell digital cameras, mobile phones, etc.)

I guess AOO has to adapt to the "logic"...

Regards,
Pedro

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: About OpenJDK

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi,

Am 16.08.21 um 10:20 schrieb Bidouille:
> Hello team,
>
> Since july, AdoptOpenJDK has been renamed Adoptium JDK.
> This project don't provide any JRE for Windows x86.
> https://adoptium.net/releases.html

At the moment...

"13th August 2021 We are completing the July 2021 PSU binaries for
Eclipse Temurin 8, 11 and 16.
Most platforms are available at our website and API now, with Docker
images and Linux packages well underway.
Remaining platforms will appear as they are ready over the coming days!"

Obviously x86 has not the highest priority.

Until then you can still download JDK 8 292 (x86) from:

https://adoptopenjdk.net/releases.html?variant=openjdk8=hotspot

That said: Of course having AOO only a in 32-bit for Windows isn't optimal.

Regards,

   Matthias

>
> So this will be a problem if AOO port x64 is not completed:
> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=46594
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

About OpenJDK

[Bidouille]

Hello team,

Since july, AdoptOpenJDK has been renamed Adoptium JDK.
This project don't provide any JRE for Windows x86.
https://adoptium.net/releases.html

So this will be a problem if AOO port x64 is not completed:
https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=46594

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org