Develop Reference

Auto-update of Java application converted to a Windows installable

I found a lot of discussions around this point but speaking either of a Java program running from the jar (in this case it is easy to replace it) or a C# application (I do not have knowledge on C#).
I use a tool (install4j, ..) to generate an installable file for Windows from the jar of my java swing application. My product installed and running on Windows should be able to "auto-update" itself, so I must have a component in my application that checks online if a newer version was to download and put in place of the currently executing.
I do not know how my application is installed in Windows (where are put the files? in one place? ... ) So what can I do to replace the current version being run with a new version (probably from a new installable file télchargé in this case) ? what's the best way?
how can I hide the questions like "do you accept ...?" and keep the original configuration during the update?

The problem for me is that my client wants/does not necessarily install java
Use the Deployment Toolkit Script to ensure the client has a suitable minimum version of Java installed. Then deploy it using Java Web Start to provide auto-update. I realize you don't want to make the client install Java, but you might be making the client install Windows if you make an executable. You'll typically lose more users by forcing them to install Windows, than by forcing them to install Java.
Now, when I give this advice to some people, they say words to the effect:
But my client only uses Windows OS! It will never be run on Mac OS or Linux/Unix.
And to that I would point out:
OK fine, but it seems yo are trying to make a left-hand turn at a right turn only intersection. If you need to turn left, you should have done that 6 blocks back.
What I mean by that is: Windows has its own languages and IDEs specialized for Windows. Being a language designed for Windows would mean it has:
Better ways to delve into the OS. Java keeps its functionality to a core set of functions that can be reliably supported across all major platforms. Anything beyond that requires native code.
Faster development time for any GUI elements. Java GUIs need to be designed using layout managers which are harder to learn and not conducive to Drag-and-Drop GUI design, which can be much faster.
A Windows based language probably has a slew of APIs and tools for providing auto-update, or if not, more free or reasonably priced 3rd party APIs for that.
..there are customers who imposed to not install java..
There is something you don't seem to understand. The GNU Compiler for the JavaTM Programming Language compiles code to natives. That is the only way to 'turn a Java app. into an executable. The GNU Compiler..
..supports most of the 1.4 libraries plus some 1.5 additions.
It does not even claim to support all of Java 1.3.
There are other utilities to install Java apps. with a private JRE. It might seem the JRE installation is invisible to the average user. But the power user would not be fooled. E.G.
Look and Feel
A Swing based app. using the Native Pluggable Look and Feel might look 'much like' a Windows app., but many people can still tell the difference. Swing does particular components differently to native Windows components (most notably JFileChooser, but there are others), and although the rest of the components look a lot like Windows equivalents, they are not exactly the same. Even the AWT based FileDialog looks different to the Windows file dialog.
Security
If the user has a problem with their PC and decides to kill a misbehaving app. they might type the following command sequence to bring up the Task Manager: Ctrl Alt Del
Even most non-power users know that key combo.
Now, let's say I am a potential customer that thinks 'Java is insecure - I don't want it on my PC'. Your app. comes along, I look at the box, no mention of Java. Good so far. Look at the one or two screenshots of it on the back of the box - looks much like a Windows app., OK.
So I fork out $24.95 for it.
I get it back to the office, install it and run, thinking:
It has an odd feel to it, but I'm too busy now, I'll check it out later.
Then I go surfing off to the net, visit a site infected with malware, and that malware causes MS Word to lock up. So I go to kill MS Word in preparation for restarting it, but.. As I'm scrolling down the available processes I notice.. Java is running.
What the huh..?
I immediately kill every Java process and see.. your app. drop off screen.
Let's go even further to assume the Malware (that is still running) goes on to cause $2000 damage to my hardware & wipes the client database I spent 3 years putting together ($50,000 loss).
I would get on the phone immediately to my lawyer and take you to court, suing you for the sum total of $1,052,024.95.
Later, in court:
Judge: What is the million collars for?
Me: Mental stress, your honor. The defendant lied to me and now I have become paranoid. Since that malware was installed, I've lost my business, my home, my wife and my peace of mind. It has caused me to become deeply depressed and I am experiencing suicidal thoughts.
Who do you think the judge is going to side with? Do you really think you can prove that your app. was in no way responsible for the problem?
Sure, you can put a disclaimer on the box:
No claims of responsibility, use at own risk.
But there are any number of US states as well as other entire countries, that will toss that entire End User Lisense Agreement right out the window and hold you responsible.
What I'm getting at, is that you are taking a huge legal risk to pretend that a Java app. is anything but a Java app. So don't do that!

I am also very keen to know that, as per my knowledge, I deployed my application using JNLP (java network launch protocol) after signing your jar file, Client's jar itself replace with the newer version.
The confirmation question "Do you Accept" in JNLP is because of the certificate windows security and JVM certification didn't recognize that.
here is tutorial for JNLP
http://www.mkyong.com/java/java-web-start-jnlp-tutorial-unofficial-guide/

Web Platforms - Amount of Control Given between Java vs ASP.Net

I've been doing a lot of research on web platforms (mainly .Net vs Java), and have found that both seem to serve a lot of purposes. What I'd like to know is, does ASP.Net provide enough control, flexibility, and customization in terms of how the server hosts and runs the website, or does Java with, say, Tomcat and Swing or Struts2 offer more flexibility?
Since Tomcat is from Apache, I'd imagine that they implemented the same design and methodology which came from Apache (which I do like). I question whether or not IIS and Windows Server actually provide this sort of thing. Is my assumption correct?

Here's my own personal analysis of a comparison of the two frameworks having worked on .NET for 4 years and Java for around 5 years.
NET has a cookie-cutter like development stack. Java you have a bit more freedom. This can be a positive or a negative depending upon the developer preference. In other words, if you want to do something in .NET there is typically one standard way of doing so. This is not the case with Java where you can choose from a myriad of libraries and/or strategies to complete your task. In my opinion, Java tends to cater to a more skilled community (especially, since almost every major university teaches on Java) that has a bit more confidence and ability when designing/building applications. That is not a generalization of all Java EE vs. .NET developers as I've met equal talents in skill and ability on both platforms, I'm making a generalization of the larger community as a whole. At the end of the day, it is a harder environment to setup and run, but with that comes the added flexibility.
As far as server environments go, you can host Java EE apps on a number of servers (Tomcat, Glassfish/Apache, JBoss, etc..). Most of them open source, so if you're skilled enough, you can dig down into that code and figure out exactly what you're getting and modify it if necessary. This is absolutely not the case with the Microsoft environment. You basically have a windows server running IIS and that's pretty much it. IIS is a decent web hosting tool in my opinion. It's easy to learn the basics, however out of the box it does not have anywhere near the customization and configuration that you can setup with Apache. For example, you have to install Helicon(or some other tool) as an add-on to IIS if you want to create complex Rewrite rules for your site. Rewrite rules are easily implemented in Apache as a standard.
In conclusion, a Java web environment is harder to setup and support, but you'll get that added flexibility with your language and your server environment as you gain more knowledge.

Choosing a platform should be really about your available expertise - your own or whatever resources you (will) have.
If you know the platform you can make it fly. As #iamkrillin stated, I too have yet to hit a roadblock with IIS/.Net platform. This is true whether or not I am hosting the site myself (colo - I own hardware/OS, etc) or via a hosting provider. On Windows hosting though, choose wisely if you host. If you know you need some bare metal access then make sure you get that privilege from whomever you choose to host with. A good practice is to set your application to medium-trust while developing - unless you will go for a dedicated server, this will likely be your hosting provider's application security setting on shared/cloud environments.
As far as routing is concerned (brought up by #GeorgeMcDowd), IIS now has it bolted in, or, if you prefer to do this at the (ASP.Net) application level (instead of IIS), you can do that too (RouteTables). I don't know how complex you envision your routes will be, so I can't tell whether you will run into some limitation either of these options offer.
As far as "standard" or "cookie cutter" is concerned, I'm not actually sure what that means. You have a (massive and growing) .Net base library (from Microsoft). If you need something very specialized (and not offered by the base lib), you can scour Codeplex and other sources (too) for libraries that you can use in your application. If you use Visual Studio, you can use NuGet to do this with a few clicks.
Don't take Microsoft's stewardship of .Net lightly as well. It's consistently being improved, updated by Microsoft.
There is an area where Microsoft is critically lagging though - and that is in mobile. Against Android and IOS and their respective devices, its a tough climb for Windows (phone, Windows 8 tablet, etc.). There are however, tools that allow you to develop in .Net and push to either device. I am only personally beginning to get into that so I cannot say how perfect or disastrous it is.
Just about the only thing left is cost. Its still cheaper to host on non-Windows platforms. If you already have expertise in non-Windows platforms, then its a no-brainer. However, the hosting cost difference shouldn't be your deciding factor if you have a learning curve (that is commonly the hidden cost).

Without a specific example of what you are referring to configuration wise. I feel pretty comforable saying that there are a variety of ways to configure a website and how it is hosted/ran etc from within the IIS control panel. To that end, I have never ran into a situation where I thought "I wish I could do x with my website" and was not able to make IIS do it.

Java to EXE good or bad idea?

I have been wondering for a long time about converting Java projects to EXE.
The advantages relies in the faster deployment on Windows where the user simply double clicks the EXE and the application is launched where is with Java, he has to run certain commands.
But EXE is really not what the Java was intended for which is portability.
So what do you think, Java to EXE good or bad idea?
I found some interesting article here.
Update
Wow, so may contradicting views so far. I would like you guys to add the pros and cons of the JAVA to EXE.

Since my expertise is with Java Web Start, which is for launching desktop apps. with a GUI, please consider my advice to be targeted mostly at those types of apps.
Other people have commented on the OS specific nature of an EXE. I always have to wonder why people choose Java to develop Windows specific desktop apps., since the Visual Studio software for Windows would probably make both GUI development (no x-plat Java layouts to bend your head around) and deployment (just guessing it can produce an EXE) easier.
OTOH only you can say what is the best development tool/language for this use-case.
As to the potential disadvantages of creating an EXE, I note at the JavaFAQ on EXEs.
There are a number of good reasons not to package your application in an executable. Daniel Sjöblom notes:
It will probably not be any faster. Modern virtual machines don't interpret bytecodes, they actually employ a JIT compiler to produce native, compiled code. Check Sun's site for further information on JIT compilers.
Static compilation increases the size of your application multifold, since all of the libraries you are using need to be linked into the application.
You lose 'free' upgrades to your program. Anytime your user downloads a new faster virtual machine, your app gets a speed boost. If you are using an exe, you will not get this benefit.
Jon A. Cruz details some of the extra steps in the development process required to create an exe. He points out that developers making native exe's need to:
Validate the latest versions of the compilation product from the vendor. If critical bugs are found, it can't be used to build a shipping product until those are addressed. Work that needs to be done each time a revision comes out from the vendor.
Submit the software through a QA cycle. Once engineering thinks things are done, they need to be verified. So every shipping version and update of a product needs to go through complete testing cycles.
Further, since native compilation is per target platform, the QA cycle needs to be done completely for each target platform, which multiplies effort required.
Shelf space. Maybe not a big deal nowadays, but could be.
Then one needs to get all customers to upgrade to the proper version. Either have free updates (in which case the business needs to absorb the cost of producing updates) or alternatively needs to handle clients not all updating.
Jon notes futher: When you ship standard Java bytecodes, VM problems are the responsibility of the platform or VM vendor. However, when you ship compiled binaries, they become your responsibility (even if they're actually bugs in the vendor's compilation product).
...
Of course, my first choice for deploying Java rich client apps. is using Java Web Start. Putting some of the benefits/features of web-start in point form:
JWS provides many appealing features including, but not limited to:
splash screens
desktop integration
file associations
automatic update (including lazy downloads and programmatic control of updates)
partitioning of natives & other resource downloads by platform, architecture or Java version,
configuration of run-time environment (minimum J2SE version, run-time options, RAM etc.)
easy management of common resources using extensions
..
I decided to highlight auto-update since with the gradual shift from apps. delivered on disk to apps. delivered over a network, auto-update is becoming more common. JWS still provides the best update experience (very configurable, mostly transparent to the user) I've seen.
And of course, JWS works on OS' for desktop PCs for which Java is available.
Update
..does Java web apps require internet connection?
(Note that name is 'Java Web Start'.)
Sure it does. At least for the initial installation. Update checks can be specified to continue to launch the previously installed version of the app. if the user is not currently connected.
But then, (in my estimation) there are more machines (such as Netbooks) with no CD/DVD drive, than there are without internet connections. If you want to sell to the larger market, look to the network to deliver the app.

It depends on your needs. We had written a little barcode client scanner app here for our customer. They run it on two Windows-PCs. They are happy having their well-known exe-files. We coded it in Java and created an EXE-file for them.
Both parties are happy with it - so why not doing it?
When there are good reasons for it and nothing against it except dogmatism then it is ok in my opinion.

I am the author of the article you linked to - glad you've found it interesting!
As my article states, and as others have already pointed out in their answers, there are multiple ways to simplify deployment of Java apps - JNLP, EXE wrappers, installers bundling a private JRE, and so on. But true native compilation is the only option that also provides protection against Java decompilers - you simply do not ship the bytecodes.
Of course, that does not make reverse engineering of and tampering with your code impossible, just much more costly in terms of required skillset and time.
As far as application performance is concerned, native compilation can make a big difference if you target embedded systems. This also applies to memory and disk footprint, albeit to a smaller extent. On the desktop you would typically get better startup, but in most other scenarios and aspects the results would depend on your app.

If it has a good reason why not? Even Eclipse has an EXE on windows and (and platform dependent binaries for linux, mac, etc) Of course you loose portability but if that is not important then go ahead.
UPDATE
The question is what do you want to achieve by creating an exe :
Convenience : users on windows prefer to click on icons, this is especially true for the non geeks. On the other hand non geeks don't care what the link does internally if it starts up an exe or something else. You can have an application icon for non native Java applications too. The alternatives would be
Web start
Creating an installer package,e.g.: http://www.advancedinstaller.com/java.html This can also solve the problem of installing the JRE
Performance : If you compile your Java application into a native solution you may gain a bit on performance but it depends on what technology you use. For example Swing tends to be slow but compiling that to native is rather tricky. If you use SWT instead of Swing that is already using native components therefore no need for further native compilation. On the other hand recent JVMs perform very well and can compile java to native to further improve the performance bottlenecks. This is done silently on the background you dont need to worry about that.
Sum : in some cases it might be the only solution, but if you choose the right technologies there will be many Java based alternative solutions to reach the same goal.

The page behind the link in the question is written by a company that sells products that compile java to native code. I would not base a decision on that alone.
The question also says that the advantage of the exe a better user experience, because the user can just double click to launch the application.
That is possible with executable jar file. In fact, its actually quite easy with standard tools in the java runtime. You just have to add a manifest to a jar file, and specify the class with the main in it. You can also specify other jar files in the classpath relative to the location of the main jar file. You can also specify an image to use as a splash screen as a resource.
e.g.
Class-Path: lib/derby.jar lib/derbytools.jar lib/jcalendar-1.3.2.jar l
ib/joda-time-1.4.jar lib/log4j-1.2.14.jar lib/looks-2.2.1.jar lib/swi
ng-layout-1.0.jar
SplashScreen-Image: resources/splash.png
Main-Class: com.you.pkg.app.Main
The basic ant project in Netbeans will do all but the spash-screen for you if you use it. If your some reason you want to do all of that by hand, make sure you understand the format of the manifest file, its a bit finicky.

As Linux, mac., Solaris user I think this is bad idea.
If you want faster deploy on windows, just create installer.

Jar files provide many benefits including:
Compact: The whole application (i.e. all the class files) is stored in one archive file (which can incorporate image and sound files if required).
Ease of use: The application can be run by double-clicking.
Compression: The jar format allows you to compress your files for efficient storage.
Security: You can digitally sign the contents of a jar file. Users who recognise your signature can then optionally grant your software security privileges it wouldn't otherwise have.
I would not convert to exe.
Most Windows applications run from a .exe file (Word, Internet Explorer, FireFox, NetBeans, ...)
Java itself has no support for doing this as the executable file will then be platform dependent (i.e. it won’t run on Macs)
However, there are (free) applications that can do this for you.

Minecraft does it, so it must be a good idea!
All jokes aside, understand that it's not 'conversion' that you are looking for, but using a custom launcher. The article you linked does a nice job of explaining the different approaches and pros/cons of each. As a general idea, it requires the extra work of creating the launcher (and a different version for each different OS architecture), but it gives you a little more control (version checking is a nice feature, also you may update the application jar rather easily, like Minecraft does). Overall it's a good idea if you think it's worth the effort, and the (little) loss in portability.
Edit: the 'Custom Java Launchers And Wrappers' approach is the one that you should use if you don't need the really nifty extra features offered by those below it.

Depends on the user base. If they are tech-related in anyway then giving them a .jar file (which could be run by double click) is a good idea for mobility.
If your users are less techy but you still need it to run on multiple platforms then wrap it as exe for Windows and as .app for Mac.
Important: I would suggest making a script to wrap it into exe, so you run it each time you have a new version.

Running The JVM From Within An MXML Component

Thinking outside of the box here...
What possible basic approaches could be taken in an effort to create a Flex component that could run Java?
I know I can easily use flex to browse to or launch a Java app, but there are things I can only do if I can run the Java from WITHIN an MXML Component.
I the strictest sense, I know it's not impossible (ie: if you had all the source code for flex and for the jvm), but what's the least impractical means to this end?
Edit:
Lots of people are interested in the reason WHY someone might want to do this. I see it as irrelevant to HOW to do it, but here goes: I have over 100 proprietary pixel-reading windows programs that I could port to Mac in this way, much easier than any other way. But instead of arguing the premises, the winning answer will ignore the reasons why, and focus on the HOW.
Showcase your creativity.

This sounds crazy insane to me. My answer is to not go down this route. It may be a fun technical challenge for fun; but has little practical value that I can see.
Answer the question, Why would you want to run a JVM inside a Flex app?
Also, How would you use a Flex App to browse or launch a Java App? As best I understood, the security sandbox of the browser prevents you from launching other local applications.

I don't believe you are correct about not being able to accomplish certain things you "can only do if I can run the Java from WITHIN an MXML Component". With proper communication set up, you can have the Applet and the SWF simply communicating with each other through an external set of processes.
The easiest way to accomplish this is to "fake it". Load a Java Applet (This should be possible by use of the SWF's ExternalInterface API -- generate the Object tag and add it to the HTML around the swf. To make this even more convincing, use CSS to have to Applet appear "on top" of the swf. ) and have it communicate with the original swf through JavaScript calls. If that is not possible, then it may be possible to have the Java Applet generate some form of pseudo-server which the swf could then communicate with.
If neither of those work, then there is always the SWF bytearray syntax. It would need to load a ByteArray, manipulate the internal data, and then send it... somehow.

A while back I prototyped something like this. I exposed a window / native app via a VNC server and then used an open source VNC client library to connect to the VNC server. It was totally hacky but it worked. Performance was not great but was usable. Here is the Flash VNC client library I used:
http://www.wizhelp.com/flashlight-vnc/index.html

I'm with Flextras, you need to explain why before a reasonable solution can be proposed.
Unreasonable solution:
Implement the jvm in AS3. Read jars in as bytearrays. Pass the bytearrays to you new jvm.
Reasons for unreasonableness:
Implementing even a partial jvm would be at least thousands of man hours of work.
Running a virtual machine inside of Flash's already (relatively) slow vm would be like riding a golf cart that's being towed by a tortoise: either one by itself would be faster.

You can interface between Air & a Java app using merapi (although that's just communication, not actually running the api inside air)

looking to scan documents directly to be uploaded to a webpage

I was hoping to do this from a flash plugin, kind of how flash accesses the microphone or webcam but it doesn't seem possible.
Is this going to be possible using Java, or ActiveX, or some other strategy that I haven't looked at yet?
The idea is to do it without a client install, or at least something lightweight and browser and platform independent, (and possibly the moon on a stick as welll ;-))

Your only real hope is ActiveX, both Flash and Java applets run in a security sand box that prevents access to resources like scanners. All you need for ActiveX controls is for it to be signed by a trusted CA and you get full access to the local machine so in theory you can do what ever you want. ActiveX is of course not browser or platform independent, so it might not be a suitable choice.
You may get some milage with Java webstart or .NET's click once deployment, both are like an easy local install that'll keep it's self up to date, there a good half way house, but aren't hosted in the browser.
Sorry I can't be more helpful, good luck