So while the flash experience is better for installation, it actually appears to be heavier behind the scenes.
So if the new installer aids with this, it could be on to something. On Sep 7, 11:29 am, RogerV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What motivated this posting is that I started with a fresh blank WinXP > SP3 that I had installed Google Chrome on. > > When I added the Adobe Flash Player for the first time, it was ready > to go in just a few seconds. > > When I installed the Java 6 JRE that Chrome required, it was a lengthy > and involved undertaking. Of course I was motivated to do it anyway as > I have specific Java software that I want to run. > > We've been hearing about this great new install process for Java in > the browser and I was fully expecting to experience that, given this > is touted as a RC (release candidate). It's too bad that it's still a > developer-only reality. The clock keeps ticking and Sun still isn't > there with a Consumer JRE. > > Also, the JVM is too much overhead when every Java app that is kicked > off requires its own instantiation - even on today's typical hardware. > > Josh says they'll share a JVM instance for applets, but that will have > stability implications on a browser like Chrome. What happens when a > page with an applet on it goes bad and is killed off by the user via > the Chrome task manager, and the user still has other applets running > in other good tab sessions? Will the JVM purge the applet hosted on > the bad page properly - in the event its hosting page is killed > abruptly? Could the JVM get destabilized by such an occurrence? What > would arguably be more robust is to spawn a JVM instance per every > tabbed web page that host an applet. Yet that would incur too much > resource overhead. > > Sun never went all the way to delivering anything from its research on > single JVM running multiple Java applications robustly. Or else where > multiple JVM instances share a lot of common state to keep overhead > lower. So we're left with running all Java applet web apps in a common > JVM and hoping everything stays well behaved. > > That's not the approach Google is taking with JavaScript-based apps > running under Chrome. They will be process-isolated and bad guys will > be nukable. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
