Jump to content
Excelsior Forums

mercenarius

Members
  • Content count

    0
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About mercenarius

  • Rank
    Newbie
  • Birthday 01/01/01
  1. Well, I noticed that compiling with no stack trace seems to greatly speed up my application on relatively slow hardware. That is good news by itself. The performance is quite good now. However, that seems to leave no way for the application to meaningful report an unexpected error like the dreaded NullPointerException. My application cannot realistically recover from this kind of error, and I don't want it to anyway. But what I need is to find some way to allow the end user to get some meaningful feedback to me if this ever happens. I don't care very much about a stack trace per se anyway. But the line number or other information on the source of the error is crucial for creating a meaningful crash report on the fly. Otherwise users can only report that the application crashed on such and such a screen and that might be worse than useless. Of course, I can simply plan on being perfect. After all, the only way that this can happen is through an error on my part. Is there a known way around this problem? Expected errors, like exceptions during I/O operations are a completely different matter, of course.
  2. Java SE 6 Update 10

    That is wonderful, wonderful news.
  3. Java SE 6 Update 10

    May I ask where we stand on this? Is there a general idea as to the date that we can expect SE 6 Update 10 for Jet? I wouldn't be a nudge but traffic is fairly low on the forum right now. Thanks James
  4. Java SE 6 Update 10

    I realize that Java SE 6 Update 10 is currently only a beta, but I was wondering when Jet will support this version. The "expected" release date for Update 10 is mid-2008. For me, the issue is the 2D graphics performance on Windows Vista. The current version of 1.6 that Jet supports works great on XP but the 2D performance on my Vista machine is miserable. This isn't Excelsior's fault, of course. I am talking about the DirectX pipeline, of course. Using OpenGL isn't realistic for me, at least not right now. Thanks James
  5. K6-III

    Thanks for the information. I am sorry that I missed the option that you described. Probably it is more realistic to bump up my minimum requirements, anyway.
  6. K6-III

    No, it's a game. And I'd like to be able to support older hardware if the video card is halfway decent. Now, I don't necessarily care exactly where the "bottom end" is, but it would be nice to know what the minimal hardware configuration actually is. I mean, I have to list some kind of system requirements, right?
  7. K6-III

    My low-end test machine has a K6-III 450 MHz processor. It is currently running Windows XP Professional SP2. Applications made with Jet 5.0 don't run on this machine. I tried two applications, one of which is a very simple Swing-based app. The console window appears, then closes without displaying anything. Is this to be expected? Is this hardware not supported? Applications with Jet 4.5 worked on the machine. I don't remember about 4.8. These applications run fine on other machines, including an old Pentium III. If the applications made with Jet 5.0 should work, then there is something else wrong with the machine. And yes, I realize that Super Socket 7 always sucked a little. I can try a different motherboard if there is nothing wrong with this class of processor. Thanks James
  8. Restricted Users

    Well, I am sorry for wasting everyone's time. It was a simple matter of permissions - I was opening a file with read+write permission where a restricted user cannot do that. There is no point in elaborating. Well, I knew that I was doing something stupid and I was.
  9. Restricted Users

    Well, my compiled application runs fine during the trial run and I packaged it with JetPackII and installed on a test machine. It runs fine on my XP test machine - if and only if I am logged in with Administrative privileges. It won't run under a restricted user. The same result obtains on my Windows 2000 Pro test machine. I must be doing something silly, but I just don't see what it is. Thanks James
×