<html>
<head>
<base href="http://fiji.sc/bugzilla/" />
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_FIXPENDING "
title="FIXPENDING - Stack Rendering Slow"
href="http://fiji.sc/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1211#c7">Comment # 7</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_FIXPENDING "
title="FIXPENDING - Stack Rendering Slow"
href="http://fiji.sc/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1211">bug 1211</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:hinerm@gmail.com" title="Mark Hiner <hinerm@gmail.com>"> <span class="fn">Mark Hiner</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre><span class="quote">>I used the experimental version of the launcher with the</span >
permission change.
<span class="quote">> It now loads the correct version of JDK and FIJI is working</span >
smoothly.
<span class="quote">> So I guess that part is worked out.</span >
That's great to hear. Thank you very much for testing and following up so
quickly!
<span class="quote">>Is this kind of bug being worked on to make it easier for the user?</span >
Definitely. This is, in general, part of our work to migrate to Java 8
(<a href="http://imagej.net/2015-12-22_-_The_road_to_Java_8">http://imagej.net/2015-12-22_-_The_road_to_Java_8</a>).
Java has an unfortunate history on the Mac, with Apple building its own version
of Java and then stopping after Java 6. As a result, Fiji currently carries a
lot of Apple Java 6-specific baggage - which is now causing problems with Java
7 and 8.
Our long term goal is to move to an industry standard way of interacting with
Java (it looks as though JavaFX is becoming that standard) that will make
transitions between Java versions easier.
In the short term, we are very close to having Fiji downloads with a bundled
Java 8. Having you test the experimental launcher and confirm that it works is
a big step in that direction.
<span class="quote">>I am still wondering about the JDK updates and how to automate that or to have</span >
FIJI alert a user to it being out of date
Moving to a JavaFX launcher could potentially help with this. There are some
concerns with allowing arbitrary Java updates (e.g. preserving scientific
reproducibility, plugins outright breaking with newer Java versions). We had
specific experience with this recently with the 3D viewer
(<a href="http://forum.imagej.net/t/java-3d-progress-and-next-steps/135">http://forum.imagej.net/t/java-3d-progress-and-next-steps/135</a>) so part of our
future plans include making it easier for ImageJ plugins to associate with a
given Java version.
Anyway, the bottom line is that we agree that Java versioning needs to be more
robust. If you'd like to share more observations or suggestions, it'd be great
to continue the discussion on forum.imagej.net.
Thanks again for the help and feedback.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>