JDK-5102042 : Java Plugin 1.4.2_x cannot read PAC file from Mozilla browser
  • Type: Bug
  • Component: deploy
  • Sub-Component: plugin
  • Affected Version: 1.4.2_03
  • Priority: P3
  • Status: Closed
  • Resolution: Not an Issue
  • OS: solaris_2.6
  • CPU: sparc
  • Submitted: 2004-09-14
  • Updated: 2004-10-27
  • Resolved: 2004-09-25
Related Reports
Relates :  
Description
Customer wishes to use netlet (Portal server functioanlity) with Sun Java Plugin
1.4.2.x for Mozilla1.4 and Netscape 7.1

Customer wishes to use plugin, but wants proxy info to be collected from the
browser's pac file URL. Java Plugin control panel has "Use Browser Setings"
check-marked under "Proxies".

When using Mozilla with the plugin, we get the Proxy Configuration on java
console as "Browser Proxy Configuration" and not as "Automatic Proxy Configuration".

This is problem for our customer's Mozilla users. Similar problem is encountered
with Netscape users also.

We have earlier filed similar bug for IE - 4988192. We incorporated suggestions
made by the plugin team then.

Please fix this or let us know of any workarounds.


 ###@###.### 

 ...

 Browser type is needed to find out how we 
 should get the proxy host and proxy port.
 However it is more important for us to
 find out the proxy port and host from an
 applet when user is using java plugin.
 Please see 4988192 for more info.

 We resolved this problem when using java
 plugin with IE with the following 
 workaround ...

 http://nspg.red.iplanet.com/cgi/ipscrtview.cgi?view=101&orig=5

 suggested by Xiaobin.

 We need similar workaround or fix for
 Mozilla and Netscape when using java plugi
###@###.### 10/27/04 21:01 GMT
###@###.### 10/27/04 21:02 GMT

Comments
EVALUATION One of trick thing for Mozilla is the current browser supports a API called "FindProxyForURL" which means Java Plug-in (not only Java Plug-in, but any other plug-in as well if it calls that function). This API provides the access of proxy the browser is using. So the plugin will always use the same proxy as what browser uses. So I don't consider it as a bug. ###@###.### 2004-09-16
16-09-2004