RE: JVM and XDK

I believe the question is simpler.

"But, one of the recent PSUs failed, because XDK was missing on top of JVM. The patch installation went well after installing XDK."

If there is something in JVM that requires XDK, that is news to me.

Mladen is quite correct that in order to use the full feature set of XDK you need some stuff from JVM.

So I could see a presumption in a PSU that it is okay to balk on a fix to XDK if JVM is missing.

But here the apparent claim is that a JVM fix is failing due to a lack of XDK. To me that sounds like a bug in the PSU.

Further, IF the dependency is bidirectional, then it should be a single install.

From my point of view then, either the PSU or the installation suite is broken.

IF I botched something in this analysis, by all means let me know. It's been a very long time (circa 1989) that I was a real hawk against false cross dependencies, and that was because memory and disk was then pretty expensive.

Dinosaurs called this bloatware. Now I would worry less about Oracle declaring (and making a single install) that JVM must be coupled with XDK for size reasons. But I would watch out for a license whipsaw forcing you to install pieces you don't need and then changing what is licensed separately.

Good luck.

I don't know how difficult it is do de-install XDK and whether that causes any problems. A *possible* course of action seems to be: 1) Install the XDK you don't need. 2) Run the PSU. 3) de-install XDK.

Again, completely untested and I don't know which workaround to this BUG BUG BUG BUG-BUG-BUG is easiest or whether Oracle would ever deign to call it a BUG and fix it at all, let alone in a timely fashion.

? Do I seem like a cranky ole dinosaur? (Make that topic OT replies and off list [OT always and off list unless you think it is really really funny. I may use your comments in my as yet unstarted autobiography, "I must not be 'EVERYONE ELSE', because he let me win, too." Probably shortened to NOT EVERYONE ELSE.)

mwf
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Mladen Gogala Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 10:17 AM
To: niall.litchfield_at_gmail.com
Cc: ORACLE-L
Subject: Re: JVM and XDK

The only one who can give a more precise answer is Oracle Corp. And somehow, I doubt that they will do it. Yes, my reply contains of fair amount of guessing, but since that guessing was done while inhaling the vapors of the laurel leaves, it can be considered as accurate. Idis redibis nunquam in bello peribis.

On 7/15/19 10:11 AM, niall.litchfield_at_gmail.com wrote:
> That doesn't answer Novelijic's question though really does it? If
> technology A is required to make technology B work, it isn't obvious
> that you need a working install of technology B to use technology A
> for other purposes.Java is also required for JDBC access to databases,
> but I don't need JDBC drivers in order to use the classes in
> java.lang.Math. In fact, this practice is a pretty good indicator that
> the developers of technology A are making assumptions and generating
> implied dependencies that shouldn't really be there.
>
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l




--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l