Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #12017 > unrolled thread

new JDK released 1.7.0_03

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  new JDK released 1.7.0_03 Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-02-14 16:29 -0800
    Re: new JDK released 1.7.0_03 Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2012-02-15 11:12 +0100
      Re: new JDK released 1.7.0_03 Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-02-15 07:44 -0800
        Re: new JDK released 1.7.0_03 Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-02-15 20:04 -0500
      Re: new JDK released 1.7.0_03 markspace <-@.> - 2012-02-15 08:57 -0800
      Re: new JDK released 1.7.0_03 Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-02-15 20:03 -0500
        Re: new JDK released 1.7.0_03 Fredrik Jonson <fredrik@jonson.org> - 2012-02-16 06:20 +0000
          Re: new JDK released 1.7.0_03 Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-15 23:05 -0800
            Re: new JDK released 1.7.0_03 Fredrik Jonson <fredrik@jonson.org> - 2012-02-16 18:21 +0000
              Re: new JDK released 1.7.0_03 Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-16 11:42 -0800
                Re: new JDK released 1.7.0_03 Fredrik Jonson <fredrik@jonson.org> - 2012-02-17 05:25 +0000
                  Re: new JDK released 1.7.0_03 Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 02:09 -0800
          Re: new JDK released 1.7.0_03 v_borchert@despammed.com (Volker Borchert) - 2012-02-18 06:54 +0000

#12017 — new JDK released 1.7.0_03

a new JDK was just released 1.7.0_03. 

Hints on installing will be posted soon at
http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jdk.html
and http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jre.html

It is pretty straightforward, so long as you remember to get 32/64 bit
or both.
-- 
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
One of the most useful comments you can put in a program is 
"If you change this, remember to change ?XXX? too".
 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#12023

Roedy Green schrieb:
> a new JDK was just released 1.7.0_03.
>
> Hints on installing will be posted soon at
> http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jdk.html
> and http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jre.html
>
> It is pretty straightforward, so long as you remember to get 32/64 bit
> or both.

Did it fix the keyboard on Mac OS?

So far openjdk 1.7 was not usable on Mac OS, the
option modifier did not work, no chance to type
[ ] | { } from a swiss german keyboard.

Exactly same application works with openjdk 1.6,
the Swing text component handles the keyboard
correctly.

Bye

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12030

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:12:20 +0100, Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

>Did it fix the keyboard on Mac OS?

This was from Oracle, the mainstream version, not Open JDK. I think
mostly it was about timezone/DST trivia updates and the usual security
stuff.
-- 
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
One of the most useful comments you can put in a program is 
"If you change this, remember to change ?XXX? too".
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12046

On 2/15/2012 10:44 AM, Roedy Green wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:12:20 +0100, Jan Burse<janburse@fastmail.fm>
> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>> Did it fix the keyboard on Mac OS?
>
> This was from Oracle, the mainstream version, not Open JDK.

OpenJDK is actually supposed to be RI, but it has not
really taken over yet.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12032

On 2/15/2012 2:12 AM, Jan Burse wrote:
> Roedy Green schrieb:
>> a new JDK was just released 1.7.0_03.
>>

>>
>> It is pretty straightforward, so long as you remember to get 32/64 bit
>> or both.
>
> Did it fix the keyboard on Mac OS?


Java Update 3 release notes.  They don't say anything about Mac OS 
though, afaics.

<http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/7u3-relnotes-1481928.html>

Looks like Java 1.7.0_03 has some Security Baseline stuff (I didn't read 
what that is), there's Java SE 7u3 updates for the Java plugin and for 
some security vulnerabilities.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12045

On 2/15/2012 5:12 AM, Jan Burse wrote:
> Roedy Green schrieb:
>> a new JDK was just released 1.7.0_03.
>>
>> Hints on installing will be posted soon at
>> http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jdk.html
>> and http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jre.html
>>
>> It is pretty straightforward, so long as you remember to get 32/64 bit
>> or both.
>
> Did it fix the keyboard on Mac OS?
>
> So far openjdk 1.7 was not usable on Mac OS, the
> option modifier did not work, no chance to type
> [ ] | { } from a swiss german keyboard.
>
> Exactly same application works with openjdk 1.6,
> the Swing text component handles the keyboard
> correctly.

It was Oracle Java that was released not OpenJDK.

As far as I can see then OpenJDK does not even
have a u3 only u2 and u4.

To find out whether it is fixed or not
you should probably read commit comments
in Mercurial.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12056

In <4f3c55ee$0$290$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Arne Vajhøj wrote:

>  As far as I can see then OpenJDK does not even have a u3 only
>  u2 and u4.

It seems that oracle have reserved odd releases solely for security updates,
while feature releases are even numbered. I'm not suprised that they do the
even numbered releases out in the open with openjdk, while keeping the odd
releases with security fixes secret as long as possible.

I haven't seen this policy stated authoritively publicly anywhere, but the
pattern of changes in the three updates of jdk 7 sure seems to support it.

--
Fredrik Jonson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12058

Fredrik Jonson wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>  As far as I can see then OpenJDK does not even have a u3 only
>>  u2 and u4.
> 
> It seems that oracle have reserved odd releases solely for security updates,
> while feature releases are even numbered. I'm not suprised that they do the
> even numbered releases out in the open with openjdk, while keeping the odd
> releases with security fixes secret as long as possible.

What the ...?

> I haven't seen this policy stated authoritively publicly anywhere, but the
> pattern of changes in the three updates of jdk [sic] 7 sure seems to support it.

Maybe because that isn't the policy and the three updates of Oracle's Java 7 
completely disprove the notion.

Java 1.7.0_1 had both security and feature changes, 1.7.0_02 had both security 
and feature changes, and 1.7.0_03 had both security and and non-security 
changes.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12060

Lew wrote:

> > I haven't seen this policy stated authoritively publicly anywhere, but
> > the pattern of changes in the three updates of jdk 7 sure seems to
> > support it.
>
>  Maybe because that isn't the policy and the three updates of Oracle's
>  Java 7 completely disprove the notion.

Maybe You're correct, I'm no authority, just calling it as I see it. I'm
curious, do you have a authoritative source for your statement?

>  Java 1.7.0_1 had both security and feature changes, 1.7.0_02 had both
>  security and feature changes, and 1.7.0_03 had both security and and
>  non-security changes.

I must confess that after the reorganization after Oracle bought Sun I find
the changelogs harder to interpret. I can't seem to find the full list of
all bugs fixed in a release in the relase notes anymore. Didn't Sun usually
include a long table of all fixes in the relase notes? Or was that another
document? Compare with the table "Other Bug fixes" below:

http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/6u22releasenotes-176121.html

Anyway, back on topic. Let me quote from the release notes:

In update 1:
 "Bug Fixes This release contains fixes for security vulnerabilities. For
  more information, please see Oracle Java SE Critical Patch Update advisory."

update 2:
 "Bug Fixes Java SE 7u2 does not add any fixes for security vulnerabilities
  beyond those in Java SE 7u1. Users who have Java SE 7u1 have the latest
  security fixes and do not need to upgrade to this release to be current on
  security fixes."

update 3:
 "Bug Fixes This release contains fixes for security vulnerabilities. For
  more information, see Oracle Java SE Critical Patch Update Advisory."

http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/7u1-relnotes-507962.html
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/7u2-relnotes-1394228.html
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/7u3-relnotes-1481928.html

I'd be happy to be proven wrong, and I'd be greatful if anyone could help
me find a more complete list of issues relsolved for each 7uN release.

--
Fredrik Jonson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12064

On Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:21:50 AM UTC-8, Fredrik Jonson wrote:
> Lew wrote:
> 
> > > I haven't seen this policy stated authoritively publicly anywhere, but
> > > the pattern of changes in the three updates of jdk 7 sure seems to
> > > support it.
> >
> >  Maybe because that isn't the policy and the three updates of Oracle's
> >  Java 7 completely disprove the notion.
> 
> Maybe You're correct, I'm no authority, just calling it as I see it. I'm
> curious, do you have a authoritative source for your statement?

Yes, I looked it up on Oracle's Java page. They issue release notes for every 
version. Most professional software companies do. The release notes describe 
what was done in the release. Their link is right there on the page for the 
download, right after the "ReadMe" link. You can't miss it. 

> >  Java 1.7.0_1 had both security and feature changes, 1.7.0_02 had both
> >  security and feature changes, and 1.7.0_03 had both security and and
> >  non-security changes.
> 
> I must confess that after the reorganization after Oracle bought Sun I find
> the changelogs harder to interpret. I can't seem to find the full list of
> all bugs fixed in a release in the relase notes anymore. Didn't Sun usually
> include a long table of all fixes in the relase notes? Or was that another
> document? Compare with the table "Other Bug fixes" below:
> 
> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/6u22releasenotes-176121.html
> 
> Anyway, back on topic. Let me quote from the release notes:
> 
> In update 1:
>  "Bug Fixes This release contains fixes for security vulnerabilities. For
>   more information, please see Oracle Java SE Critical Patch Update advisory."

Selective quotation proves nothing, and is intellectually dishonest.
Update 1 also includes:
"Olson Data 2011g", fixed "RMI Registry Issue", fixed "JIT and Loop Bugs", 
"Other Bug Fixes".

> 
> update 2:
>  "Bug Fixes Java SE 7u2 does not add any fixes for security vulnerabilities
>   beyond those in Java SE 7u1. Users who have Java SE 7u1 have the latest
>   security fixes and do not need to upgrade to this release to be current on
>   security fixes."

And yet they also cite "Enhanced Security Through Old Release Warnings".

> update 3:
>  "Bug Fixes This release contains fixes for security vulnerabilities. For
>   more information, see Oracle Java SE Critical Patch Update Advisory."

And of course that's *all* it contains, right? Oh, wait, except for "Other Bug 
Fixes". There's that selective quotation thing again!

> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/7u1-relnotes-507962.html
> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/7u2-relnotes-1394228.html
> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/7u3-relnotes-1481928.html
> 
> I'd be happy to be proven wrong, and I'd be greatful [sic] if anyone could help
> me find a more complete list of issues relsolved for each 7uN release.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12109

Lew wrote:
>  On Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:21:50 AM UTC-8, Fredrik Jonson wrote:
>
> > Maybe You're correct, I'm no authority, just calling it as I see it. I'm
> > curious, do you have a authoritative source for your statement?
>
>  Yes, I looked it up on Oracle's Java page. They issue release notes for
>  every version.

Hey, Lew, I know that. And you know that I know because I actually link to
no less than three release notes only a few sentences further down in the
message from me that you quote.

I was asking for a reference that explicitly documents Oracles release
system and especially if they have - or do not have - any form of a even/odd
release schedule or something in that way.

--
Fredrik Jonson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12117

On Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:25:44 PM UTC-8, Fredrik Jonson wrote:
> Lew wrote:
> >  On Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:21:50 AM UTC-8, Fredrik Jonson wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe You're correct, I'm no authority, just calling it as I see it. I'm
> > > curious, do you have a authoritative source for your statement?
> >
> >  Yes, I looked it up on Oracle's Java page. They issue release notes for
> >  every version.
> 
> Hey, Lew, I know that. And you know that I know because I actually link to
> no less than three release notes only a few sentences further down in the
> message from me that you quote.

Yes, that is correct. I did not deny knowing that.

> I was asking for a reference that explicitly documents Oracles release
> system and especially if they have - or do not have - any form of a even/odd
> release schedule or something in that way.

Those links *are* such a reference. You are all proud of having cited them. 
Now read them and you'll see that the releases all three contain security 
update aspects and all three contain non-security aspects. The release notes 
clearly refute that hypothesis. Question asked and fully answered. Several 
times.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12159

Fredrik Jonson wrote:
> In <4f3c55ee$0$290$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Arne Vajh??j wrote:
> 
> >  As far as I can see then OpenJDK does not even have a u3 only
> >  u2 and u4.
> 
> It seems that oracle have reserved odd releases solely for security updates,
> while feature releases are even numbered. I'm not suprised that they do the
> even numbered releases out in the open with openjdk, while keeping the odd
> releases with security fixes secret as long as possible.

I have been wondering for some time why they put major changes into
updates rather than teeny versions, e.g. 1.6.0_10 rather than 1.6.1

-- 

"I'm a doctor, not a mechanic." Dr Leonard McCoy <mccoy@ncc1701.starfleet.fed>
"I'm a mechanic, not a doctor." Volker Borchert  <v_borchert@despammed.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web