Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #35744

Re: Warning, bad Java

Path	csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From	Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: Warning, bad Java
Date	Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:17:38 -0400
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines	55
Message-ID	<ntg4dh$1vdj$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	<988350a8-29b9-4340-81ca-cf5082dc05c7@googlegroups.com> <ntatqk$9dh$1@gioia.aioe.org> <bd4d67a1-e82a-4a6d-94d7-5e583ba35f7b@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host	PBuS014lhzVyHjLbXmo/ZQ.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	8bit
X-Complaints-To	abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
X-Notice	Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:35744

Show key headers only | View raw

On 10/10/2016 8:07 AM, Eric Douglas wrote:
> On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 9:54:39 AM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> Well - that is why Oracle put out the N and N+1 versions.
>>
>> N is the safe choice. N+1 is latest and greatest.
>>
>> I think that in general N+1 are quite safe. But there is a risk.
>> And apparently something slipped into 102.
>>
>> It does probably not help that JNLP is so little used as it is.
>> Less focus.
>
> The past several releases they've had an N and N+1.  I used the N+1

Me too.

> since I thought it would just be better (security patches?  new
> features that shouldn't hurt existing code?) and they were fine

N is security patches only.

N is security patches and other patches.

> previously.  You'd think it should be bug free when they call it
> public release,

Bug free software??

:-)

>                and when they fix a critical bug like this they
> should get it into the public release, but they just put the fix into
> the beta 122.

They can not have two 102's.

They could have rushed a 104 out.

And if it had been sufficient important then I guess they would.

JNLP is just put in next planned release.

>                                       I didn't see a workaround for
> this, some way to tell my thread to timeout and move on if it hits
> this deadlock, so our only solution is to install 101 on every
> client, now that we've already pushed 102 through group policy which
> doesn't seem to want to remove it.

:-(

Arne

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Warning, bad Java Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 08:32 -0700
  Re: Warning, bad Java j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-10-07 22:37 +0200
    Re: Warning, bad Java j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2016-10-07 22:59 +0200
  Re: Warning, bad Java Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2016-10-08 12:00 +0200
  Re: Warning, bad Java Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-10-08 09:54 -0400
    Re: Warning, bad Java Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 05:07 -0700
      Re: Warning, bad Java Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-10-10 09:17 -0400

csiph-web