Skip to main content

Other problems regarding Java Web Start: please consider for 1.6.0_u21

3 replies [Last post]
mauromol
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-05

Hello,
first of all I would like to say thanks to Sun developers for their support regarding my previous topic:
http://forums.java.net/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=67840&tstart=15
The problems mentioned there have all been fixed for 1.6.0_u18. Thank you very much!

However, I'm still here to report some other problems that are affecting Java Web Start (either directly or indirectly) so that our customers are getting more and more the feeling that this technology is actually broken.

They are mainly problems regarding the check of the signatures of JAR files.
Here are the links:

http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6805618
This problem sometimes happens using 1.6.0_u18, while it never happened with 1.6.0_05 or 1.5.0_x. As I wrote in my comment, we are distributing an application via Java Web Start and all our classes are in a JAR correctly signed. However, sometimes Java Web Start says that the signer information of one of the classes in that JAR does not match that of other classes of the same package (in the same JAR)... which is clearly wrong. In fact, trying to restart the application immediately after this error is given and in the exact same manner, makes the application start correctly! And, as I said, this never happened with JWS clients of JREs <= 1.6.0_05.

Review ID: 1750096 (reported by me on Aprile 08, 2010, still not received any feedback)
This is not directly related to Java Web Start, but I didn't see it happening with 1.6.0_05, while it is happening now with 1.6.0_18 and I think it's related to how Java Web Start is now handling the JRE selection to run the application, especially when the JNLP asks for the use of a JRE which is not the newest installed one and when the Java Console is set up to be shown always.
In java.awt.Component.BltBufferStrategy.showSubRegion(int, int, int, int) a NullPointerException can happen if java.awt.Component.BltBufferStrategy.dispose() is called meanwhile. Bug #6281999 fixed a case when this could occur, but it seems that a problem can still happen and I suspect it is due to the fact that there is no null-checking against the Graphics obtained from the backbuffers array.

Another problem that is not affecting us for now (but may do in the near future, since it's quite severe) is the following:
http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6850618
This is related to one of the problems I mentioned in my previous topic and is again about JAR signature verification, which is failing if a JAR is not empty but contains only non-Java classes files (just configuration files, for instance).

I would appreciate very much if I could get some feedback about these topics too.

Best regards.
Mauro.

Reply viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
mauromol
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-05

Hi Nelson,
this is the updated situation:

http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6805618
I have not received any feedback on this. However, I couldn't reproduce anymore on 1.6.0_19, 20 or 21, although another user in a comment says he does with 20.
Anyway, this bug seems in some way related to a new one: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6967414
I could reproduce the latter with 1.6.0_21, and this is another serious bug that hurts the user experience a lot starting form 1.6.0_10 on... :-(

http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6850618
This has been closed as a duplicate of 6953931. I confirm they should be the same bug, however no news on this yet.

http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6947533
I just realized that a feedback from me was requested, however I never received any such request. Anyway, I just added a comment to provide some more info.

Thanks in advance for any feedback.
Mauro.

ndcosta123
Offline
Joined: 2007-10-03

We have recorded you report with Review ID: 1750096 as bug id 6947533 in our database. This will be visible in a few days at http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6947533

Could you confirm if the other problems mentioned in your report are both related to bug report - 6805618. This report (6805618) is currently under review.

Thanks,
Nelson

mauromol
Offline
Joined: 2006-05-05

Hi Nelson,
first of all: thank you!

Secondly, in brief the problems I'm having are:
- 6805618
- 6850618 (warning: it's not the same number, "0" and "5" are swapped... it's surprising! :-D); this is related to 6850598, fixed in 1.6.0_u18
- 6947533 (the latest one you just reviewed)

Mauro.