Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'exceptional cases' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
exceptional cases
Authored by: hayne on Jan 28, '06 07:41:59AM
Zimbra wouldn't look at anything other than the 1.4.2 JDK. A quick symlink change later, and voila -- everything works like a charm. Should Zimbra fix the distribution so we don't have to change the symlink? Absolutely. Is there anything wrong with me wanting to get the damn thing up and running without wasting any more time?
You didn't make it clear what you were trying to do, or what the real problem was. You said that Zimbra "wouldn't look at anything other than the 1.4.2 JDK". But that is (currently) the default JDK, so I don't understand the problem.

But in any case, there is obviously nothing wrong with changing the symlink as a hack to work around some broken software that you need to work now as long as you realize that it is a hack and that you are doing it in desperation. It is quite different to recommend (like the article) changing the symlink as the general way to do things when a much better way exists.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Of course it's exceptional
Authored by: SnowLprd on Feb 18, '06 10:17:41AM
You didn't make it clear what you were trying to do, or what the real problem was.
Actually, I did make it clear. You just didn't get it. Zimbra will not work with a JDK less than 1.5.
You said that Zimbra "wouldn't look at anything other than the 1.4.2 JDK". But that is (currently) the default JDK, so I don't understand the problem.
When using the "much better way" you recommend to specify 1.5 as the default JDK, Zimbra still looks at the 1.4.2 JDK and refuses to run. That is the problem.

The rest of your comment is redundant. Nobody is arguing that changing the symlink is the best way to do things, but rather that it is sometimes a necessary evil.

[ Reply to This | # ]