> On May 12, 2022, at 8:10 AM, Michael Hall <mik3h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> My primary suggestion would to be to use an UUID for the unique ID. They are 
>> of fixed length, are for all intents and purposes unique and you can conjure 
>> them up from your hat. (An alternative is that the user needs to specify a 
>> unique ID, but that is probably a less ideal solution.) Presumably, we can 
>> have some kind of prefix like "org.openjdk.jpackage." before the UUID to 
>> make them a bit understandable, if someone where to inspect the package 
>> metadata.e 
> I was thinking jpackage would change the XXX to app name but a fixed size 
> unique field would probably be better.
>> This seems like a fully workable solution to me. However, I'd really like to 
>> understand option #1 better, which was: "Package the `java` executable in a 
>> standard bundle, replacing `runtime/Contents/Home/bin/java` with a symlink 
>> to that."
>> I don't know what a "standard bundle" is, or how you would go around to 
>> package the java executable in one. But on the surface, it sounds much nicer 
>> than binary editing.
>> I also don't understand if that means that the standard bundle needs to be 
>> created at jpackage time, so it gives us the chance to set a proper ID, or 
>> if the standard bundle can be created at build time, and then the existence 
>> of this bundle just makes Apple avoid the bundle ID collision checks. Or if 
>> I'm just misunderstanding it all...
>> /Magnus
> I may again not understanding but I was thinking they were talking about 
> something like symlinks to a machine installed JDK and this seemed to me to 
> defeat some of the purpose of embedding the jdk. But he could be thinking 
> else. Something external to the application anyhow it seemed.

I thought they meant something like the embedded JDK would be like a framework 
bundle. Since the framework is expected to be the same in multiple apps it 
would be excluded from the duplicate id check. (I think that is related to the 
older bug that the Apple guy thought might have come back.)


Reply via email to