I am working on a java based application and we are looking to ease our deployment of updates. Up until now, we've always simply sent out new install packs & had the sysadmin's on our customer sites roll out the upgrades - painful for a large number of users.
what I'd like to do is something similar to java webstart (or eclipse p2) - when the application starts, it checks for updates in a specified location and then downloads the updates prior to starting.
But here's my problem - I want more control over what's done outside of the scope of plugins & jar files. For example:
I'd like to be able to upate my JVM (we ship a modified version with additional security features).
I need to install DLL's - possibly local to the jar files, sometimes to windows
Occasiontally run MSI's to install windows components (e.g. printer drivers).
I need to modify config files & the registry.
I have found a few applications that support this (such as AppLifeUpdate at http://www.kineticjump.com/) but they tend to be .NET focused and it seems a bit perverse to introduce a .NET dependancy on a java application ;)
I know I could write my own here, but if there is already a 3rd party library out there that supports this kind of facility, then it would make my life a lot easier.
So, has anyone else had a similar problem & knows of some products I could look at?
Thanks, Brian.
I have done similar things but on Linux/Unix, so can't suggest any specific products for Windows. But I always found helpful to either package everything in OS format and distribute everything that way (rpms, debian pkg, Solaris pkg, ...) or have the platform deployed through OS mechanisms and have the application deployed through Java mechanism (Web start).
The reason is that sysadmins typically don't like things that magically update themselves without them knowing or in a way that does not follow standard practices. That is: you can't expect to make your life easier if you are not sure that you are not making their life more difficult...
Also: whatever work I do at the OS level, I do it with OS tools. If on Windows it means using .NET, I would very much consider using that...
Hope this helps!
Related
I have a question about how to manipulate files from the browser, currently we are using a java applet. To create some folders, replace/delete save some files/folders and execute a shell command with parameters. As we know Chrome no longer supports the npapi and therefor java applets, FireFox will soon follow and my guess is that IE will not stay behind forever.
So the actual question is what's the best way to go?
Should we think about creating plugins (but this then should be done for all major browsers - a lot of work)
Or do you recommend to install an external program, what we can launch on the users system? By for instance associating a specific extension, or by adding a url scheme?
What about this Java Web Start? Does this allow us to communicate with the domino api?
Any other technologies that would be better?
The website we are building is using IBM Domino 9.0.1 XPages (JSF).
Answering to your use case: content management system.
For adding files the HTML5 files API should do all you need. There are plenty of examples including multi file uploads.
It gets trickier when you want to provide a round-trip edit experience. Like you click something and Word, Excel, Impress, Photoshop opens and you edit. When you save it all goes back to Domino.
The solution here is wevDAV. You can even expose Domino views as folders in Explorer / Finder / Nautilus.
For Domino there is a project on OpenNTF that implements WebDAV for documents/attachments on Domino (I wrote it). It might be your best bet.
I think we should be making a distinction here:
things like file access can be done using HTML5 file access, but
things like local administration definitely aren't something that need or should be done from within the browser.
In fact, I always hated that Java suggested that users "need not install any software" to do this and that on their machine, which was a straight lie, considering they downloaded Java Software, had to tell their Java Policy framework to trust that and then that software was able to make local changes. That's just as unsecure as downloading any (signed) executable and making your user execute it.
Java's portability¹ doesn't apply to your use case, as it seems; "executing a shell command" sounds as non-portable as it gets. So, in the end, you either only have one platform you address, or one solution for every platform, in which case you gain no portability by the fact that the same Java executable can run on all JREs (given that's the case, even).
I'd say: It's a good time to let Java for Desktops die, especially since you don't seem to be doing anything that Java is good at² in your application.
As it sounds, the average installer framework can do what you want without you writing any code. There's plenty out there, especially for Windows, which you seem to be addressing; take microsoft's .MSI as an example. You'd end up with a two click, signable, trustable, updateable solution that wouldn't need the user to keep a JRE installed or secure at all.
CLARIFICATION: I really don't hate Java; I don't find it's the greatest language or has the best ecosystem, but whatever makes your application work is fine.
Now, you mention:
To be clear, we are creating a Document Managing System, which used to be on the Lotus Notes client and that we are trying to port to the Web.
That does in fact sound like it might be a good idea to chose any browser and embed that. In fact, Firefox is "merely" an application around a browser core, and you might just modify it (e.g. by writing an extension) to fit your needs. It's not really a "web application", that way, but it would meet your requirements of integration with a web application and local administrative access. I furthermore recommend thinking twice about the shell scripts you need to run locally -- maybe their job can be more easily replaced by another program or even something that is "web compatible" than calling them with local privileges from your web application.
¹ (which was a big thing back in the day, but honestly, Java applications nowadays are about as portable as your average .Net or Qt based application on desktop OSes, but never quite feel completely like home -- it's like portabilities ugly sister if you're portable, but only offer the minimal common subset of functionality and look and feel on each platform)
² ... whatever that might be!
DISCLAIMER: I'm relatively new to Linux. I debated putting this on SuperUser or ServerFault because the answer does require an explanation of Linux as a system (and not a specific programming problem), however I'm interested in this from a Java developer's perspective, and I argue that this is a specific problem because where I install GlassFish greatly impacts my Java configuration, and ultimately, app configuration. Not to mention posting this question on those other sites probably won't garnish any attention from a Java developer, more over system admins, who may not know enough about Java to weigh-in fully on this decision.
I'm trying to decide where to install GlassFish and it seems to me I have (realistically) 4 viable options:
/opt/glassfish/
/usr/local/glassfish/
/home/myUsers/glassfish/ (which is what all the OGS docs show in their examples)
/home/ogs/glassfish (as its own user, similar to how Apache web server is sometimes setup)
I'm wondering what the pros (taking into consideration the nature of how Linux treats these directories differently, the FHS, etc.) and cons of each approach are.
I've read that there are mounting/paritioning benefits to installing it under opt/. However, I normally install 3rd party software to usr/local/, so I'm a little unsure about that as a strategy.
The Oracle GlassFish Server (OGS) docs all demonstrate (but never outright recommend) GlassFish being installed under your home directory (home/myUser/).
Then again, I've read that it is fairly common to install daemon-type services (which is what I would imagine I would be using GlassFish as - where I start it once and it only comes down for routine maintenance or crashes) as their own user (home/ogs/glassfish/).
I'm sure this decision is also impacted by how I'm going to use GlassFish, so let me qualify this question with a few constraints:
I intend to deploy 4 OGS instances across 4 VMs on the same physical machine and cluster them into the same domain (1 of the 4 server instances will be the admin server for the domain)
Several applications will be deployed to this cluster (all 3 non-admin nodes) at the same time, and should be running 24/7/365 except for when they crash (hopefully not often!) or when I need to maintenance or tune them
Each application will be farily large and I would like to configure them with real admin, not "bare bones" de minimis, default settings
If these don't provide specific-enough information to help make this choice, please ask and I can be more specific.
I guess, when the dust settles at the end of the day, I'm looking (more or less) for a matrix with each of the four directory options (plus any other obvious ones I've omitted) compared against their respective pros & cons.
There's also the option of using your Linux distro's package management system to install Glassfish. On Ubuntu for example, you could install it using
sudo apt-get install glassfish-appserv
and let it get installed to wherever the package owner thought it should be installed.
I myself tend to steer away from the above option, as I like to exert my own control over which exact version of Glassfish (or any other Java server/software) is installed and where, but I just wanted to throw that out there, as it's one of the things you could do.
Now for the individual options you've provided:
/opt/glassfish/
This is the preferred option as far as I'm concerned. It keeps the software on a separate directory outside of the regular Linux installation, and allows the mounting and partitioning benefits you mention.
/usr/local/glassfish/
I don't like this much, because /usr/local is generally used by third-party software that is installed using the distro's package management software (apt/yum/etc), and on most distros has directories like bin, etc and lib under it. Putting a directory for glassfish under it, would make it out of place.
Also I prefer to keep system directories separate from custom software that doesn't use the distro's package management tools.
/home/myUsers/glassfish/ , /home/ogs/glassfish
These 2, I would not recommend.
They are only described in most places, because the author doesn't want to assume that the user has root access on those boxes, in which case the home directory would be the only one you'd be guaranteed to own. If you own the system and are managing it, those restrictions don't apply.
Remember, home directories are for specific users. I always recommend server software being managed with individual users' accounts that have the required privileges. Putting software in someone's home directory would mean that you either
Give everyone who needs to manage Glassfish, the password to that user account
Give multiple users read/write access to the home directory of a specific user.
Either way, that's not good system administration policy.
There's not much of a Java perspective here, but if you ask me, there doesn't need to be.
Regarding the prior recommendation, some tradeoffs remain:
If placed in /opt or /usr/local, you will have to have read/write access to those directories, meaning that you will have to have root access to the box. In some environments (where IT controls the platform), IT will not let you have root access. You would have to delegate to IT the responsibility of installing, patching, and upgrading the GlassFish binaries.
If placed in /opt or /usr/local, then you will also have to place the domain directories (--domaindir) in a separate location unless you want them owned by root (unlikely). This was the default in GlassFish 2.x RPM installs on Linux. GlassFish 3.x does not have RPM installs (from Oracle, anyway), but you can still split the two. This isn't a bad tradeoff, but something you should understand.
If placed in a "home directory", then you have rights to upgrade the core binaries, install patches, etc, separate from IT. There is good/bad/ugly in this approach depending on organizational responsibilities.
Hope this helps.
I'm looking for advice on good options to deploy Java applications on end user systems.
Our end users are not tech savvy experts but casual computer users who can't be expected to figure out directories and version conflicts.
Runnable jar is not practical because we need to provide VM parameters. Batch files are not practical because for whatever reason, java.exe is not on the $PATH in a huge amount of Windows system.
Webstart is an option, but our users commonly complain that no shortcuts are created (a feature that's apparently broken), every click on the website prompts a new download, and a plethora of other issues make this option seem incredibly unprofessional to the end user.
Many of the things one finds when googleing for Java deployments are themselves built with Java, which means they won't run either on a system with a missing or broken Java installation.
If you do not want to spend any money, a popular solution is izpack.
If you're looking for a commercially supported solution, there is install4j (Disclaimer: My company develops install4j). The installer is a Java application here as well. However, it is started by a native launcher that can download a JRE bundle from your server on the fly. You can also statically bundle a private JRE. See here for more information on JRE bundles.
Webstart is an option, but our users commonly complain that no shortcuts are created (a feature that's apparently broken), every click on the website prompts a new download, and a plethora of other issues make this option seem incredibly unprofessional to the end user.
Many webstart deployments are quite unprofessional. Make sure any deployment that is showing problems is validated using JaNeLA. For the shortcuts specifically, look into the IntegrationService of the JNLP API for establishing them after launch, with feed-back.
Ultimately though, APIs will have bugs. If you find one in web start, please report it on the bug database (v. broken at the moment, but you have to try).
Many of the things one finds when googleing for Java deployments are themselves built with Java, which means they won't run either on a system with a missing or broken Java installation.
As to missing or too low version Java, use deployJava.js to ensure a suitable JRE is present. No ideas on the broken installs.
I doubt you will swing back to JWS for this immediate deployment, but please investigate it according to the ideas outlined above, for future use.
Our customer wants us to ship his application with an embedded JVM. We tried to convince him otherwise but had no luck.
Now, here is the way we are contemplating taking. We want to take the Apache Harmony VM and libraries. We would then strip everything we don't need and ship the application with the bare minimum in terms of libraries.
My questions are thus:
1) Where can I find detailled explanations about the functionality provided by the different libraries (natives and classes) coming with a JVM?
2) How can i know if a JVM library file is needed or not?
I know the questions are a bit convoluted, but i hope somebody out there have done something similar.
Regards,
Gregoire.
It looks like you can also distribute the Sun JDK if you do not modify anything (I would consult a lawyer to be sure).
Whichever way you go I would not prune anything, that would make it more complicated if and when you needed to upgrade the client's software.
The problem is not the license of Sun/Oracle, they allow redistribution of the Java Runtime Environment, so developers can embed it into their application installation packages.
However, the problem is export regulations. By law, you may not export parts of the JRE to certain countries, so you would have to check whether your customers are in the allowed list of countries before they can download your application package which includes the JRE. This for example applies to such things as the Java Cryptography.
Use a Sun JVM embedded within your application and start it with the invocation API. That way you could save some more diskspace :) IBM has an example source code how to start the JVM.
Try launch4j to bundle the JVM with your application and save some work.
I would like to know if there is any way that I could build a very simple GUI app (it doesn't even have to look good) that will run on a fresh install of Windows Vista and OS X with no other installations needed by the user. I would perfer not to use Java (just out of personal programming preference). I will use it though, if it is the only way. Specically, I am wondering if I can write a swing app with Scala or Groovy and run in on windows without them having to install anything. Sorry if this is a silly question, I am a Obj-C developer by trade.
You can pack the Scala jars into your own, which should work as long as Java is installed (which it usually is on a 3rd party vendor install of Vista or OS X). If you use Java web start, no installations are needed beyond Java itself. Plus, if you're going to install your own code, why not just copy along the Scala jars also?
If you really mean a fresh install--nothing but what the OS provides--then no, I don't think so.
Edit: You do always have javascript on the browser(s). I assume this won't cut it for what you want?
If you really, really don't want to install anything (or carry anything in your app), then write the application as a web app (possibly a javascript app). Then any user can run that UI from any machine with a decent browser. But then, this will require that you host the app somewhere.
If that is not an option, you can develop your app to as a single html/xhtml file containing a self-contained, self-modifiable javascript application (like TiddlyWiki which I use a lot). Then the user user can download on it on his machine, point his browser to it and voila.
If you combine javascript with HTML5 (and assuming the user has a HTML5 compliant browser like safari), your application can use localStorage to keep its state in the user's machine (thus no longer needing to be self-modifiable to save state as TiddlyWiki does.)
But this would break your rule of not downloading anything on the user's host machine. It is a chicken-and-egg problem that has no solution since each OS implements its own set of application libraries. For multi-platform support, you must use a layer that abstracts out differences between operating systems, be it a vm (like JVM, Ruby or Mono) or a set of libraries (Qt, Gnome).
As far as i know you won't be able to accomplish that with no other installations needed by the user. If you violate this restriction, mono (with gtk#) is a good choice.
Scala and Groovy will have the same deployment issues as Java; all of these require a JVM to be installed. You generally have to first install the JVM (which is not included with Windows) and then install your program. Java is included in OS X, however.
It is possible to use Ruby or Python and one of the cross platform libraries (like wxWidgets) and compile these to an executable file that includes the entire set of runtime libraries (e.g. all of ruby and python).
REAL Studio (formally REALbasic) certainly meets this requirement. It creates native applications that have no external dependencies for OS X and Windows (plus Linux).
In theory you could write a .net application using Mono that it should run without issues on any other one with the .net runtime environment installed.
But I'm not sure if it will work on practice.
I've had some success with XulRunner
There's also a couple of recommendations from these questions I asked
Building Cross Platform app - recommendation
Building XUL app a-la SongBird
XULRunner is pretty cool once you get into it, but it's a tad confusing at first (I thought).. the folks on the mozilla google groups are really nice and helpful though!