Hey Michael,
FWIW, I have been using https://bitbucket.org/infinitekind/appbundler as
packager/launcher for a while now. It passes a couple of additional environment
variables to the JVM:
• LibraryDirectory
• DocumentsDirectory
• CachesDirectory
• ApplicationSupportDirectory
• SandboxEnabled (the String true or false)
Not sure what javapackager does. Perhaps this is helpful for you.
-hendrik
> On Mar 12, 2016, at 12:00, Michael Hall <mik3h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 11, 2016, at 3:47 AM, Michael Hall <mik3h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>> Maybe someone else can answer the question of whether or not this has been
>> considered for sandboxed java applications so that you actually do get
>> something different for these properties that is usable?
>
> Given no one has tried answering this I would either assume sandboxed
> settings aren’t different or people who know if they are different aren’t
> following the list anymore.
>
> It doesn’t seem all that bad an idea to me. With applications getting more
> complex having different possible settings for some of these properties could
> make sense. Say signed and sandboxed versus not MAS targeted could have
> different user.dir settings.
>
> Meanwhile, since I am not currently MAS targeted I will see what I can do
> with Application Support, although that is really not all that different from
> using user.home/user.dir.
>
> javapackager user.dir I think had user.dir set to the app path itself. Useful
> for read access of your own app files, but not for storing data assuming you
> are in the Application directory with no write permissions. Again since the
> Apple jvm’s (user.dir was always the app's directory as I remember) I think
> this setting has changed a couple of times. javapackager may of changed again
> I vaguely remember.
>
> My last couple tries with javapackager didn’t successfully get me valid
> application bundles at all, but it wasn’t anything I needed critically.
>
> I will take a look at your links.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Michael Hall
>
>
>
