In my mind, the question for K-M is - Why would anyone want to run the slow, buggy Sun Java client support?

I visit exactly one web site which requires client-side Java support. I use IE 5.5 to view the site, because in my experience the MS VM runs much faster and cleaner than Sun's.

IMHO, client-side Java is a non-starter - it has never worked up to its promise, and usage is now diminishing rapidly as a result. It's a nice language for programmers (albeit inherently insecure), but a seriously lousy Windows implementation by Sun.

IMHO the key question for K-M is - Why support Any client-side Java? Most of the e-commerce products I have dealt with have given up on client-side Java simply because user-support is impossibly costly - the apps fail completely on a major percentage of user systems, for reasons that are completely out of the control of the vendor.

I don't personally know anyone who is presently running the Sun client-side support for any reason, and I know of major corporations who have decreed that it is not permitted on their internal systems for security reasons.

So why not save yourselves some work, and drop support for client-side Java altogether?

i could be wrong, but i would guess that the developers don't devote much of their time to that issue; the plugin API is already there, as is the plugin... or am i missing something?

Ok, Microsoft don't want anything to do with Java, and have dropped the
VM from IE6.
But, what about Javascript? -- does it need the JVM? I have seen recently
in Microsoft sites that they are still supporting "JScript", which I presume
is their idea of Javascript.
Maybe client-side Java will die, Javascript lives on? .... any thoughts?

client-side implementation of javascript (by any other name) is entirely independent of any java installation. it's a built-in part of almost any graphical browser.

I realise that I may be stating the obvious here, however... isn't it just a case of if you want Java, you install the Sun plug-in, and if you don't, then don't install it? I mean it would be a silly move on the developers behalf to exclude Java support altogether, especially when the option *to not use it* is so easy.
Sorry, however as I did say in another *similar* thread, I need to use Java because my bank utilises a Netscape Security Applet, which parses XML, in order to do online banking with K-Meleon, and I'm sure that a lot of other online banks do something similar, unless they use a propriety extension like Active-X.
Anyhow, just my two cents worth... :-)

Javascript has nothing to do withn Java - it's a completely separate product that Netscapre originally named, after buying the code from its creator.

As to install JRE or not, it must cost something to support the function in a browser, no matter how trivial. The suggestion was just for the developers to shed some load by not trying to support a low-use functionality.

well, i guess low-use functionality is in the eye of the user, no?

i don't have any sort of java implementation installed, but the subject seems to pop up on these forums as often as anything else, so it looks like it's useful to _somebody_.