Figure 1: The same release, once without and once with its own runtime.

jlink takes the modules of a JDK and produces a runtime image that contains only what this one application calls. The image goes into the release, next toapp/ andlib/. The start script finds it there, and the server no longer needs an installed Java.

On the reference server that means65 instead of 309 MB and16 instead of 68 modules. The image contains two executables:

runtime/bin/
├── java
└── keytool

Nojavac, nojdeps, nojlink, nojcmd, nojstack. What sits on the server can start the application and manage keystores — nothing else. That is the property Chapter 10 discusses as a security gain, and it is a by-product: nobody removed the tools, they were never part of what the application needs.

What this part does not change

Three things stay as they are, and it is worth saying so up front.

The systemd unit.ExecStart still points tocurrent/bin/start.sh. No path, no variable, not a single line changes. The trial run on the server executed withJAVA_HOME unset and found its JVM anyway.

The application. Nomodule-info.java, no restructuring, no new dependency. Chapter 3 explains why that is not a coincidence but jlink’s design.

The recommendation from Part 5. Anyone who chose the fat JAR can continue just the same; the image sits next to it, not inside it.

The code state for this part

Tagteil-06. Compared toteil-04 there are two changes: one in the start script, one in the assembly of the distribution. Both appear in Chapter 7.

git clone https://github.com/svenruppert/Blog-Vaadin-Deployment-on-Hetznercd Blog-Vaadin-Deployment-on-Hetznergit checkout teil-06

The module this part works in isembedded-jetty — it carries themain() and the assembly that builds the distribution.

Why a runtime of your own?

The obvious answer is: because the image is smaller. It is correct and at the same time the weakest of the three answers.

Size

65 instead of 309 MB is 79% less. That sounds impressive and means little in practice: a server with a 40 GB disk does not notice the difference, and the transfer over the network barely registers next to the 29 MB of application libraries.

Where size does matter is a different setting — wherever the image ismultiplied. A container image that carries the full JDK carries it in every layer, in every registry, on every node. For this series that is no argument, because no container runs here; Chapter 11 comes back to it.

Attack surface

A full Temurin 26 ships 68 modules, 22 from thejava. namespace and 46 from thejdk. namespace. This application calls 16 of them. The remaining52 are code that sits on the server, can be loaded, and is never needed — among them a compiler, a scripting tool, and the entire toolchain for process inspection.

That is not a theoretical argument. Anyone who has compromised an application far enough to execute code finds a complete development environment on a server with a full JDK. On one with a jlink image, they findjava andkeytool.

The second half of the same argument concerns vulnerability reports. A CVE against a module that is not contained in the image does not affect this release — verifiably so, not as a matter of judgment. Chapter 10 shows how to prove it.

The division of responsibility

This is the answer that carries this series.

As long as a Java is installed on the server, there are two places where decisions about the application’s runtime are made: the release and the machine. A release built and tested with Java 26 runs on a machine whose Java someone has raised to 27. Maybe it works. Nobody has verified it, because the two decisions were made in different places.

With its own image, the Java version ispart of the release and travels with it — forward on update, backward on rollback. The rollback from Part 5, Chapter 5 takes the runtime along without anything having to change for it.

It is the same idea that carried Part 3. There it was about Jetty: a server whose Jetty someone else maintains has a second place where decisions about the application’s behavior are made. Part 6 applies it to the last remaining component.

What speaks against it

Three things, and they are not small.

The build becomes platform-bound. An image for Linux x86-64 can only be produced on Linux x86-64. Chapter 6 describes what that means for the build process and concedes that the solution on the reference server is a compromise.

Java updates become releases. A security update of the JDK used to besdk install,sdk default, restart — three steps without a new build. With your own image it is a new release. Chapter 10 works through the numbers.

The module list has to be right. And it cannot be fully derived. That is the core of Chapters 4 and 5 and the actual reason this part is longer than the tool suggests.

What jlink does — and what it does not require

A misconception circulates aboutjlink that is persistent enough to derail entire projects: that you have to modularize your application to use it. That is wrong, and the distinction is worth clearing up before the first line of tool invocation appears.

Two class paths that have nothing to do with each other

Since Java 9 there have been two ways for the JVM to find classes.

Themodule path (--module-path) carries modules: archives with amodule-info.class that declare what they export and what they require. Theclass path (-cp) carries everything else — it works the way it has worked since Java 1.0, and everything that sits on it ends up in the so-called unnamed module.

jlink operates exclusively on the first. It builds an image fromplatform modules —java.base,java.sql,jdk.zipfs, and so on. What the application brings along does not interest it.

And that is exactly why nothing changes about the application:

exec"$JAVA_BIN"$APP_OPTS$JAVA_OPTS -cp"$CLASSPATH" com.svenruppert.flow.Application"$@"

That is the start line from Part 4, unchanged. The class path still points toapp/*:lib/*, the 127 archives still carry nomodule-info.class, and the JVM still loads them as the unnamed module. The only thing that changes iswhich JVM that is.

Why the story is often told differently

Becausejlink demands a module list, and the obvious way to obtain a complete module list is to make the application itself modular. Thenmodule-info.java writes down what it needs, andjlink can follow that declaration.

Anyone who does not modularize the application — and with 127 dependencies, nobody does — has to determine the list some other way. That is whatjdeps is for, that is what Chapter 4 is for, and that is what the uncomfortable finding in Chapter 5 is for.

So the effort does not disappear, it shifts. You save yourself the restructuring of the application and pay with a list that has to be maintained.

What ends up in the image

jlink takes the named modules, resolves theirrequires relationships, and writes the result out as a runtime image. On the reference server, 10 named modules become 16:

java.base java.datatransfer java.desktop
java.instrument java.logging java.management
java.naming java.net.http java.prefs
java.security.jgss java.security.sasl java.sql
java.transaction.xa java.xml jdk.unsupported
jdk.zipfs

The six unnamed ones come in transitively:java.desktop requiresjava.datatransfer,java.sql requiresjava.transaction.xa andjava.xml,java.security.jgss requiresjava.security.sasl. You name the roots; the resolver takes care of the rest.

java.desktop in a server application looks like a mistake but is correct: that is wherejava.beans lives, andflow-server,flow-data, and Jetty’s servlet layer use it. Chapter 4 shows how to verify that.

What does not end up in the image

Everything else — and that is more than the number 60 suggests:

The last row has a practical consequence that Chapter 6 runs into on the reference server:a jlink image cannot reproduce itself. Whoever has the image cannot build a new one; that takes the JDK.

The third row is the one you miss before you need it. Anyone used to tackling a hanging service withjcmd orjstack will not find the tool in the image.

It can be retrofitted, and the price is lower than caution suggests. Withjdk.jcmd added to the module list:

without jdk.jcmd 65,992 KB 16 modules bin: java keytool
with jdk.jcmd 66,292 KB 19 modules bin: java jcmd jinfo jmap jps jstack jstat keytool

300 KB for six tools. That is not a question of size but a trade-off between diagnostic capability and attack surface — and it is one to decide deliberately, not to catch up on during the first incident. For the reference server it stays at the 16 modules: whatever needs diagnosing is in the journal, and a release without diagnostic tools can, if in doubt, be swapped for one with them — that is what the symlink from Part 5 is for.

Determining the required platform modules

jlink demands a list. The application does not keep one. So someone has to produce it — and the tool for that is calledjdeps.

The invocation

jdeps --print-module-deps\ --ignore-missing-deps\ --multi-release26\ --class-path"current/lib/*"\ current/app/vaadinapp.jar

Four switches, and three of them need explaining.

--print-module-deps switches the output from a report to a list — exactly the form--add-modules expects. Without this switch you get a multi-page breakdown of who calls whom; with it, a single line.

--ignore-missing-deps is unavoidable on a real class path. 127 archives practically always contain references to classes that are not shipped — optional integrations with libraries you do not use. Without this switch,jdeps aborts at the first such spot instead of evaluating the rest.

That is the first hint at how this analysis works: it isallowed to have gaps, and it does not tell you so.

--multi-release 26 determines which branch of a multi-release archivejdeps reads. Without it, it refuses to work on every archive withMulti-Release: true in its manifest — and that is the same manifest entry that Part 4, Chapter 5 dealt with for the fat JAR.

The result

java.base,java.desktop,java.instrument,java.management,java.naming,java.security.jgss,java.sql

Seven modules. Anyone who does not want to take them on faith can havejdeps show, in report mode, which archive pulls in which module — here the most notable culprits for each:

You take these seven, hand them tojlink, get an image, start it — and get an error.

The first failure

java.nio.file.ProviderNotFoundException: Provider "jar" not found
at java.base/java.nio.file.FileSystems.newFileSystem(FileSystems.java:341)
at org.eclipse.jetty...

The missing module isjdk.zipfs. Jetty opens archives not only as files but asfile systems —FileSystems.newFileSystem(uri, env) with ajar: URI. The provider for that lives injdk.zipfs, is found viaServiceLoader, and appears in noimport statement.

Added, rebuilt, started — and the next error.

The second failure

java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: sun/misc/Unsafe
at org.eclipse.store...

jdk.unsupported. EclipseStore usessun.misc.Unsafe to read and write objects bypassing serialization — that is the reason it is fast. The module is called “unsupported” because it contains access points that are officially not part of the platform; in the full JDK it is always present anyway, which is why its absence only shows up here.

Added, rebuilt, started — and this time it runs.

Nine modules, one running service

systemctl status vaadinapp active (running)
curl -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' https://demo.svenruppert.com/ 200
curl -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' https://demo.svenruppert.com/login 200

The service runs. Both routes respond. Login works, language switching works, persistence works.

This is where the part would end — if the image were complete. It is not, and the fact that it runs anyway is the most interesting finding of this series.

The three modulesjdeps cannot see

Two modules were supplied by the trial run, each with an error at startup. The third produces no error.

What is missing

java.net.http. The module with the HTTP client that Java 11 introduced. It does not appear in thejdeps output, it is missing from the image, and the service starts, runs, and serves as if everything were fine.

Whyjdeps does not find it

Not because of reflection. The call is right there in the code:

privatestaticfinalclassHibpHolder{staticfinalHaveIBeenPwnedCompromisedPasswordCheckerINSTANCE=HaveIBeenPwnedCompromisedPasswordChecker.usingJdkHttpClient(HaveIBeenPwnedCompromisedPasswordChecker.DEFAULT_ENDPOINT,HIBP_TIMEOUT);}

The reason lies elsewhere, and it is a property of the invocation from Chapter 4 that is easy to overlook:

jdeps ... --class-path"current/lib/*" current/app/vaadinapp.jar

jdeps examines what is given as an argument. The class path serves only for resolution. The argument is exactly one archive:app/vaadinapp.jar, 16 KB, essentially the launcher class. The 127 archives inlib/ are consulted to resolve references — they are not examined.

And the chain to the HTTP client runs entirely throughlib/:

app/vaadinapp.jar
└─> jCustos-…-core (lib/) application code
└─> PasswordPreflight (lib/) der Lazy Holder oben
└─> jCustos-credentials-hibp-00.83.00.jar (lib/)
└─> java.net.http

Nothing is wrong with the tool, it reports no error, and it answers exactly the question it was asked.

The obvious switch does not help

jdeps has-R for recursive traversal. Measured on the same release:

without -R: java.base,java.desktop,java.instrument,java.management,
java.naming,java.security.jgss,java.sql
with -R: java.base,java.desktop,java.instrument,java.management,
java.naming,java.security.jgss,java.sql

Identical. In combination with--print-module-deps and--ignore-missing-deps, the switch changes nothing about the result.

All archives as arguments — and the next problem

The way that remains: have every archive examined, not just the one.

jdeps --print-module-deps --ignore-missing-deps --multi-release26\ current/app/vaadinapp.jar current/lib/*.jar

java.base, java.desktop, java.instrument, java.management, java.naming,
java.net.http, java.rmi, java.security.jgss, java.sql, jdk.unsupported

Ten instead of seven.java.net.http is in,jdk.unsupported too. That looks like the solution, and it is not — for two reasons.

java.rmi is too much. The shipped image does not contain it and runs. The culprit isjakarta.transaction — the interface for distributed transactions references remote calls, and this application never enters that branch. Anyone who follows this list adds a module that contributes nothing but attack surface.

jdk.zipfs is still missing. It appears in neither of the two outputs, because it is not the target of any call: Jetty requests a file system for ajar: URI, and which provider serves it is decided at run time viaServiceLoader. Nothing of that is in the compiled code.

How the absence shows itself

An image withoutjava.net.http, started against the same libraries, password check invoked directly:

### Image WITHOUT java.net.http (15 modules)
password123 -> acceptable=false
correct-horse-battery-staple-42 -> java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError:
java/net/http/HttpTimeoutException
### Image WITH java.net.http (the shipped one, 16 modules)
password123 -> acceptable=false
correct-horse-battery-staple-42 -> acceptable=true

Three observations, each more unpleasant than the last.

The first line is the same in both cases. A weak password is rejected, with and without the module — the local blocklist runs before the network query and needs no HTTP. Anyone who tests the check with an obviously bad password seesno problem.

The error does not name the class you expect. NotHttpClient butHttpTimeoutException — the class the loading process stumbles over first. Anyone who searches for the module name will not find it in the error text.

The timing is the worst imaginable. The service starts, both routes respond with 200, login works. The release is declared good. It breaks the first time someone sets a password — on a fresh installation that is the setup screen, that is, the very first action of the very first user.

What follows from this

A startup attempt is not a proof of completeness. It demonstrates that the modules suffice for startup, and it says nothing about anything loaded later.

The module list needs a test that uses the application — not starts it: uses it. On the reference server, that was setting a password. What such a run does not touch, nobody checks.

The list belongs documented, not derived. In the build script it therefore appears not as the output of a tool but as text with a failure signature:

# What jdeps cannot see. Every entry comes from an actual run, not from# an analysis:## jdk.zipfs ProviderNotFoundException at startup. Jetty opens# archives as file systems.# jdk.unsupported NoClassDefFoundError: sun/misc/Unsafe. EclipseStore.# java.net.http No error. The image starts, serves pages, and logs# users in; the HIBP check only breaks when someone# sets a password.EXTRA="jdk.zipfs,jdk.unsupported,java.net.http"

A comment that names a failure signature is worth more than a list that is correct. The list goes stale with the next dependency; the failure signature tells the next person what to look for.

The finding that holds the series together

It is the third time, and it is the same shape every time.

InPart 3 it was the class path: what the compiler sees is not enough for the annotation scan. InPart 4 it was the provider directory: what the compiler sees is not enough for the merge. InPart 6 it is the module list.

Producing the image

The module list is settled. The invocation that turns it into an image is short — and every one of its switches has a reason you should know before adopting it.

jlink --add-modules"$MODULES"\ --output"$DIST/runtime"\ --strip-java-debug-attributes\ --no-header-files\ --no-man-pages\ --compress zip-6

The switches

--strip-java-debug-attributes removes line numbers and local variable names from the class files of the platform. This affects the platform classes exclusively; stack traces of theapplication keep their line numbers, because the application archives inlib/ remain untouched. What you lose are line numbers in JDK-internal frames — bearable when debugging.

--no-header-files and--no-man-pages remove the C header files for JNI and the manual pages. Nobody needs either on a server.

--compress zip-6 compresses the module store. Chapter 9 measures what it costs and what it brings; the short version is 33 MB less image at identical startup time.

⚠️ The switch that fails on a lean Debian

The documentation and most tutorials name--strip-debug. On the reference server it ends like this:

Error: java.io.IOException: Cannot run program "objcopy":
Exec failed, error: 2 (No such file or directory)

--strip-debug invokes anexternal program —objcopy from the GNU binutils — to remove the symbol tables from the native libraries. On a development machine it is present, on a minimal Debian installation it is not.

Two ways out:

sudo apt-get install binutils# about 20 MB of tooling on the server

or the switch that manages without an external program:

--strip-java-debug-attributes# does the same inside the JVM

On a server that in the end is not supposed to carry any Java at all, it would be absurd to install binutils so thatjlink can run. That is why the build script contains the second variant.

Where the build takes place

Here lies the most uncomfortable property of the whole approach.

A jlink image is platform-bound. An image for Linux x86-64 is produced on Linux x86-64. Anyone who develops on a Mac with Apple silicon — as in this series — cannot build it on their machine.

The documented way out is called cross-linking: download a second, complete JDK for thetarget platform and pointjlink via--module-path at itsjmods directory. That works and is the right way as soon as a build machine is involved.

On the reference server it fails over a detail:the Temurin build installed by SDKMAN ships nojmods directory. Cross-linking would therefore require a second, complete download — for a platform on which the build could run anyway.

So the server builds its image itself. This is possible thanks toJEP 493 (Linking Run-Time Images without JMODs, introduced with Java 24):jlink works from the installed runtime image and no longer needs thejmods files. Without this mechanism, the path on this server would be blocked.

The script

The whole process lives intools/jlink-runtime.sh, invoked with the unpacked distribution directory:

tools/jlink-runtime.sh /opt/vaadinapp/releases/2026-09-12-jlink

It determines the modules withjdeps, adds the three from Chapter 5, invokesjlink, and reports at the end what was produced:

jlink-runtime: jdeps found 7, adding 3 it cannot see
jlink-runtime: 65M, 16 modules

That line is worded that way on purpose. Whoever reads it sees immediately that three modules do not come from the analysis — and knows where to look if the image later turns out to be missing something.

Merging image and distribution

The image exists, the distribution from Part 4 does too. Together they form a release that expects nothing more from the machine. Two changes are needed for that — one to the start script, one to the assembly.

The shape of the release

2026-09-12-jlink/
├── VERSION
├── bin/start.sh
├── app/vaadinapp.jar 16 KB
├── lib/ 127 archives, 29 MB
├── runtime/ 16 modules, 65 MB ← new
└── sbom.json

runtime/ joinsapp/ andlib/, it does not replace them. Everything Parts 4 and 5 said about this shape holds unchanged: same unit, same symlink, same rollback.

The change to the start script

Part 4 introduced the start script with the sentence that the release itself says how it wants to be started. That is exactly where the decision about the JVM belongs:

if[ -x"$APP_HOME/runtime/bin/java"];thenJAVA_BIN="$APP_HOME/runtime/bin/java"elseJAVA_BIN=${JAVA_HOME:+$JAVA_HOME/bin/java}JAVA_BIN=${JAVA_BIN:-java}fi

Four lines, and they accomplish more than they appear to.

A release with its own runtime uses it. Without configuration, without an environment variable, without the unit knowing anything about it.

A release without its own runtime behaves as before.JAVA_HOME, otherwisejava from the path — that is literally the version from Part 4.

And both sit side by side in the samereleases/ directory. The switch between them is the sameln -sfn as any other. That is the reason the changeover was possible without downtime and the rollback stays open.

The proof of that is short and unambiguous: the trial run on the server executed withJAVA_HOME unset and found its JVM anyway.

ExecStart=/opt/vaadinapp/current/bin/start.sh

This line was in the unit before the changeover and remains in it, unchanged, afterwards.

The change to the assembly

The assembly descriptor from Part 4 gets one morefileSet:

<fileSet><directory>${project.build.directory}/jlink-runtime</directory><outputDirectory>runtime</outputDirectory><fileMode>0644</fileMode><directoryMode>0755</directoryMode></fileSet>

If an image sits undertarget/jlink-runtime, it goes into the distribution. If none is there, the assembly plugin skips the directory without comment, and the same thin distribution as in Part 4 is produced.

The Maven build deliberately does not produce the image itself. If it did, a development machine would produce an image for that machine, and it would go into an archive destined for a Linux server — a mistake that would only surface on the server, and there with a less than helpfulExec format error.

Instead, the division of labor is:

On a Linux build machine all three steps run back to back in the same pass, and the finished.tar.gz already carries the runtime. Without such a machine, the middle step runs on the target machine — Chapter 8 shows how.

What happens to the SBOM

sbom.json still describes the application: 129 Java components, 118 JavaScript components.The Java runtime is not in it.

That is a gap, and it must be named. Whoever ships the runtime ships software that until now someone else was responsible for — and the bill of materials says nothing about it. An image of 16 modules from Temurin 26.0.2.1 is a component with a version and a provenance, and it belongs on the list.

Thecyclonedx-maven-plugin does not pick it up, because it does not exist at the build time of the Maven run. It can be added by hand, and what that looks like belongs in its own context — the two articles on SBOMs and delivery formats take it up.

For this part, the finding stands:the release becomes more complete, its bill of materials does not.

Getting it onto the server

The procedure is the one from Part 5, with one step inserted.

# 1 Build and upload — unchanged from Part 5mvn -Pproduction,thin clean packagescp embedded-jetty/target/vaadinapp-00.01.00-thin.tar.gz sven@server:/tmp/# 2 Unpack next to the existing releasesREL=/opt/vaadinapp/releases/2026-09-12-jlinksudo mkdir -p"$REL"sudo tar xzf /tmp/vaadinapp-00.01.00-thin.tar.gz --strip-components=1 -C"$REL"# 3 NEW: add the runtimesudoJAVA_HOME=/var/lib/vaadinapp/.sdkman/candidates/java/current\ sh /opt/vaadinapp/tools/jlink-runtime.sh"$REL"# 4 Ownership — as for every releasesudo chown -R root:vaadinapp"$REL"sudo chmod -R g-w,o-rwx"$REL"# 5 Switch over and restart — unchanged from Part 5sudo ln -sfn"$REL" /opt/vaadinapp/currentsudo systemctl restart vaadinapp

Step 3 is the only addition. Steps 1, 2, 4, and 5 are literally the ones from Part 5, Chapter 4.

The result

current -> releases/2026-09-12-jlink
JVM /opt/vaadinapp/current/runtime/bin/java
Service active (running)
HTTP 200
Hardening 1.1 OK

The hardening score is unchanged. That is not self-evident: the runtime now sits below/opt/vaadinapp, that is, in a directory the service reads. It is owned byroot:vaadinapp and is not writable for the group — the same rule that Pitfall 12 from Part 1 enforced for the SDKMAN directory, applied here to the release. The service can execute its JVM and cannot replace it.

ReadWritePaths stays at/var/lib/vaadinapp/work and…/logs. The release is immutable for the service, runtime included.

What the changeover cost

Nothing beyond an ordinary release switch. The service was unreachable for the duration of one restart; the number is in Chapter 9. Caddy held the connections during that time; the public response stayed at 200, because access runs through the reverse proxy and not directly against port 8080.

⚠️ The JDK cannot go yet

The obvious next move would be to remove the SDKMAN JDK. It would be premature.

/opt/vaadinapp/releases/
├── 2026-09-09-thin/ needs the installed JDK
├── 2026-09-09-fat/ needs the installed JDK
└── 2026-09-12-jlink/ brings its own runtime

Only the newest release is self-contained. The two predecessors fall back to the installed JDK viaJAVA_HOME — and precisely they are the target of a rollback. Removing the JDK would mean giving up the rollback, and with it the property that Part 5 singled out as the most important.

For the reference server that means: the 309 MB stay put for now. Anyone who wants to be rid of them keeps the predecessors as.tar.gz in an archive instead of as unpacked releases — then a rollback is one extra unpack, and the JDK can go.

The build step on the target machine, once more

Step 3 invokes a compiler component on a production server. That is the spot where this chapter is unclean, and let it be named clearly:

• Afull JDK must sit on the server so thatjlink andjdeps are available — the very JDK you wanted to get rid of.
• The step runs asroot.
• It is not repeatable in the sense that two runs on two servers would produce the same image; they produce two images from two JDK states.

The clean way is a build machine running Linux. There, steps 1 and 3 run together, the.tar.gz already carries the runtime, and what remains on the server is unpacking and switching over. The server then needs no JDK — and step 3 disappears there entirely.

For this series that machine does not exist, and rather than pretending it does, what stands here is the way that works without it.

Measuring: what a runtime of your own costs

Four variants, three runs each, all on the same server, all with the same application and the same unit.

Downtime is the span during which the service does not respond on port 8080.Uptime is reported by the application itself, measured from process start to Jetty’s operational readiness.

Size

79% less — 65 instead of 309 MB. That is the number that convinces, and Chapter 2 has already said why it weighs the least in this setup: the server has the space.

More interesting is the ratio inside the release. At 65 MB, the runtime ismore than twice the size of the application (29 MB oflib/ plus 16 KB ofapp/). Whoever ships a release that carries its own runtime ships two-thirds Java.

Startup takes longer

And that was not expected.

Around 290 ms more uptime, 3,866 versus 3,574 ms. Reproducible across all runs, clearly outside the noise. Two explanations suggested themselves, both were tested,both are refuted:

The compression.zip-6 has to be decompressed on loading — that plausibly costs time. Measured: the uncompressed image (98 MB) lowers the downtime by 123 ms and leavesthe uptime unchanged at 3,852 ms. So the compression costs nothing in application startup time.

The missing class-data archive. A full Temurin ships four prepared CDS archives; a jlink image does not. That is more than a guess — it is right there in the version output:

full JDK: ... (build 26.0.2.1+1, mixed mode, sharing)
jlink image: ... (build 26.0.2.1+1, mixed mode)

Thesharing is missing. Measured with--generate-cds-archive: the uptime even rises slightly, to 3,899 ms.That is not it either.

The number still deserves context: 290 ms on 3.5 seconds is 8%, and it is incurred by a service that starts once per release. For this setup it is irrelevant. For an application that starts per invocation it would be the opposite — and there the tool of choice would not be jlink anyway, but a native image.

Memory

The jlink image needs12 MiB more, 370 versus 358 MiB. Same application, same settings, fewer modules — and more memory.

Here the CDS explanation that failed for startup time does apply: with--generate-cds-archive the value drops to 359 MiB, practically to the level of the full JDK. A class-data archive allows the class state to be mapped in as a memory-mapped file instead of being placed on the heap — exactly what the image without an archive lacks.

That makes CDS, in this setup, amemory tool, not a speed tool:

+28 MB image → −11 MiB memory → ±0 ms startup time

Whether that is worth it depends on what is scarcer. On a server with 4 GB of RAM and plenty of disk: yes. On the reference server, which is short of neither memory nor disk: not necessary — and that is why the shipped image is the one without CDS.

What did not change

The application notices nothing of running on a different JVM. That is the real finding of this chapter:an image of 16 modules behaves like a JDK of 68 — except for 290 ms that nobody can explain and 12 MiB that CDS brings back.

What changes about the release model

Moving the runtime into the release shifts a responsibility. That has two sides, and the unpleasant one comes first.

A Java update is now a release

Before:

sdk install java 26.0.3-temsdk default java 26.0.3-temchown -R root:vaadinapp /var/lib/vaadinapp/.sdkmansystemctl restart vaadinapp

Four lines, no build, no artifact, a few minutes.

After: build a new image, pack it into a new release, ship it, repoint the symlink. The procedure from Chapter 8, in full.

That is more effort, and it should not be talked down. Anyone who applies a monthly JDK security update will from now on run it through the release pipeline. Without build automation that carries it, this quickly becomes an update that does not happen — and an outdated Java in the release is worse than a current one on the machine.

One qualification puts the objection into perspective for this server:the automatic updating from Part 1, Step 21 never covered the JDK anyway. It maintains Debian packages; the JDK came via SDKMAN. So the step was already manual before. What changes is not that it becomes manual, but that it becomesvisible: as a release with a date that can be kept available or taken back, instead of a symlink that someone repointed at some point.

In return, the Java version travels with the rollback

That is the other side, and in a series that dedicated Part 5 to the rollback it is the more important one.

Until now a rollback was incomplete: it took back the application and left the runtime standing. Anyone who observes a problem after a JDK update and goes back to the previous release goes back to the previousapplication — on the new Java. The problem stays, and the cause is now harder to find, because the one change that was just taken back was not the one that mattered.

With its own runtime the rollback is complete.ln -sfn to the previous release takes back application and JVM together.The state that ran can be restored as a whole — and not just two-thirds of it.

The attack surface, provable

52 modules no longer sit on the server. What that is worth shows when a vulnerability report comes in.

With a full JDK, the question “Does this affect us?” is a judgment call: the module is there, maybe it is not loaded, you cannot be sure. With a jlink image it is a query:

/opt/vaadinapp/current/runtime/bin/java --list-modules| grep'^jdk.scripting'# (no output)

No match means: not included. That is not an argument you have to make, but one you can prove — and for a VEX document that justifies the statusnot_affected, the difference is exactly the one between a claim and evidence.

The same holds for the case Chapter 2 described: anyone who can execute code on the server finds no compiler there, no scripting engine, and no tools for attaching to other JVM processes. That prevents no break-in. It shortens what is possible afterwards.

The gap that remains

Two things do not get better through this approach, and they belong here, because otherwise the chapter would look too good.

The bill of materials does not know the runtime. Chapter 7 named it:sbom.json describes 129 Java and 118 JavaScript components; the 16 modules of the image are not in it. Of all things, the component for which responsibility was just taken is missing from the document that is supposed to prove responsibility.

The module list is a maintained file. It comes from an analysis plus three entries from failure signatures (Chapter 5). If a dependency arrives that needs another module, nobody notices automatically — in the fortunate case at startup, in the unfortunate one with the first user who invokes the affected function.

Whoever adopts jlink takes on both as an ongoing task. That is the price for the runtime becoming part of the release, and it is only appropriate once the gain is actually needed.

The comparison across the series — and where the application ends

Six parts, five delivery formats, one server. What each format expects from the target system — and what it brings along.

The overview

All five variants sit simultaneously in/opt/vaadinapp/releases/ and were measured in a single pass — that is why the numbers are comparable. The archive sizes from Part 5 (26.68 MB for the thin distribution, 25.81 MB for the fat JAR) come from an older state of the code and are not.

The right-hand column is the thread that runs through the series, and read from top to bottom it is a single movement: what the machine provided at first, the release provides at the end.

The column next to it shows what that costs — and across four parts the answer is: almost nothing. The release stays between 21 and 29 MB while the prerequisites on the server shrink from two third-party components to one. The Jetty from Part 1 moves into the application in Part 3 and shows up there as the 8 MB difference between 21 and 29 MB — a good deal against a 44 MB distribution that someone has to install and maintain.

Only the last step costs:from 29 to 94 MB. The difference is the runtime, and it is more than twice the size of the application that it runs.

Which form for what

WAR to an external Jetty — when operations provides an application server and several applications run on it. Then Jetty is shared infrastructure, and shipping it per application would be wasteful. The price is depending on two states that someone else maintains; Part 2 showed how tight the coupling between Vaadin version and servlet version actually is.

Fat JAR — the default for the normal case. One archive, one checksum, no directory of 128 files. Part 5 measured that it starts neither faster nor slower and needs around 48 MiB more memory; that is tolerable. The price is in Part 4, Chapter 5: the merge is not a copy operation, and whoever gets it wrong builds an archive that starts and does not work.

Thin distribution — when you want to see what is being shipped. 127 archives, each with a name and a version, each individually replaceable. For debugging and for everything related to license and vulnerability checking, this is the more pleasant form.

Own runtime — when the Java version is to belong to the release. Three cases justify the effort: a target system on which no Java can or may be installed; an operation in which the rollback must be complete; and an environment in which the attack surface must be provable rather than estimated.

For everything else, an installed JDK plus fat JAR is the simpler solution, and in operations, simpler is a value in itself.

Where does the application end?

The series has been moving this boundary for six parts, and at no point was it clear where it belongs.

Part 1 would have answered: the application ends at the WAR. Everything before it is its business, everything after it is operations. Part 3 pulled Jetty inside, because the coupling between Vaadin and servlet version was too tight to run it across a system boundary. Part 6 pulled the JVM inside, because a rollback that leaves the runtime standing is not a complete rollback.

What remains is not a technical answer but one about responsibilities:

This series pushed the boundary far, because the reference server is one that a single person operates. Where one team provides operations and another the application, it lies elsewhere — and there the WAR from Part 1 would be the right answer, not the outdated one.

The step that does not come

The container.

It is the obvious next thought, and it solves the same problem — an image that brings everything along, on a host that provides nothing. Two things speak for treating it separately.

It does not replace the question, it relocates it. A container image with a full JDK carries the same 309 MB, just one layer further down. The work from Chapters 4 and 5 is due there just the same, and it pays off theremore strongly than here: an image that is multiplied into every registry, onto every node, and into every layer profits from 79% less footprint more than a disk on which 309 MB sit once. Chapter 2 ranked that as this series’ weakest argument — in the container it becomes the strongest.

It brings a second system boundary with it. Network, file system, process isolation, registry, signing — each of these is a topic of its own, and the systemd hardening from Part 1, which this series holds at 1.1, would have to be answered anew there. Squeezing that into a closing chapter would mean treating it badly.

What carries over from this series into a container is therefore not the result but the method:a module list that cannot be derived; a startup attempt that proves nothing; and a release that describes its own state completely. Whoever has that can put it into a container image. Whoever does not puts a problem inside and a layer on top.