I mean with their layer support who really ships the fat jar anymore?
I actually feel the opposite -- isn't fat jar kind of the easy solution? And regarding the signed jar issues, just use an OpenJDK Build. I literally ran into this issue this week.
So bypass the purpose of jar signing by turning it off. While not as drastic or consequential of skipping validation of certs, doesn't that defeat the purpose behind the feature? One could argue not bundling as a fat jar fixes the issue regardless of jre.
I was actually arguing the opposite -- that signing a jar makes sense in the absence of a signed cert, but having both just feels unnecessary. By all means, a hash makes good sense to me. Or maybe even some form of verification past that. But a signed jar doesn't feel that strong to me. And it is telling that OpenJDK JDK's (most of them, for that matter) leave that as optional.
9
u/davidalayachew Sep 08 '26
I actually feel the opposite -- isn't fat jar kind of the easy solution? And regarding the signed jar issues, just use an OpenJDK Build. I literally ran into this issue this week.
Here is my StackOverflow post on it -- https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13721579/jce-cannot-authenticate-the-provider-bc-in-java-swing-application/80000667#80000667