JDK 1.5 or JDK 1.6

Discussion in 'Java' started by Pep, Jul 11, 2007.

  1. Pep

    Pep Guest

    Hi, is JDK 1.6 considered stable and should applications be upgraded
    from JDK 1.5 to 1.6 if so?

    TIA,
    Pep
     
    Pep, Jul 11, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Pep wrote:
    >Hi, is JDK 1.6 considered stable ..


    I consider it stable (and do not speak for anyone else).

    >..and should applications be upgraded
    >from JDK 1.5 to 1.6 if so?


    Huhh? What do you mean 'upgraded'? If you
    are currently running them under 1.5 only, test
    on a few 1.6 JRE's, and if it runs as you expect -
    add 'JRE 1.6' to the 'compatible with' list*.

    If there is 1.6 functionality that is of interest, it
    might be possible to cause the app. to fall
    back gracefully to accomodate the 1.5 JRE's.
    This strategy provides the 'best of all worlds'
    experience for the end user.

    * If using web start, this would be as easy as
    changing the version attribute of the java/j2se
    element of the JNLP file - from 1.5*, to 1.5+.

    --
    Andrew Thompson
    http://www.athompson.info/andrew/

    Message posted via http://www.javakb.com
     
    Andrew Thompson, Jul 11, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Pep

    RVince Guest

    Not sure of this, but I think 1.6 was primarily released as the latest,
    stable 1.5.x but for Vista. Any comments on that statement guys? -R. Vince
     
    RVince, Jul 11, 2007
    #3
  4. Pep

    Pep Guest

    Andrew Thompson wrote:
    > Pep wrote:
    > >Hi, is JDK 1.6 considered stable ..

    >
    > I consider it stable (and do not speak for anyone else).
    >
    > >..and should applications be upgraded
    > >from JDK 1.5 to 1.6 if so?

    >
    > Huhh? What do you mean 'upgraded'? If you
    > are currently running them under 1.5 only, test
    > on a few 1.6 JRE's, and if it runs as you expect -
    > add 'JRE 1.6' to the 'compatible with' list*.
    >
    > If there is 1.6 functionality that is of interest, it
    > might be possible to cause the app. to fall
    > back gracefully to accomodate the 1.5 JRE's.
    > This strategy provides the 'best of all worlds'
    > experience for the end user.
    >
    > * If using web start, this would be as easy as
    > changing the version attribute of the java/j2se
    > element of the JNLP file - from 1.5*, to 1.5+.
    >
    > --
    > Andrew Thompson
    > http://www.athompson.info/andrew/
    >
    > Message posted via http://www.javakb.com


    Thanks. By upgrading I meant is there much mileage in moving our code
    base to JDK 1.6. As a rule we would not move up without doing a full
    regression test of our code but like most companies we are extremely
    busy and do not have a lot of resources available for this exercise.

    So it's really a question of the benefits in doing this. If, for
    instance, 1.6 doesnot resolve a whole host of bugs or similar benefits
    then we probably would not do the upgrade right now. The code does not
    require 1.6 per se.

    Cheers,
    Pep.
     
    Pep, Jul 11, 2007
    #4
  5. Pep

    Pep Guest

    RVince wrote:
    > Not sure of this, but I think 1.6 was primarily released as the latest,
    > stable 1.5.x but for Vista. Any comments on that statement guys? -R. Vince


    Thanks for the reply. By "Vista" do you mean microsoft windows?

    Cheers,
    Pep.
     
    Pep, Jul 11, 2007
    #5
  6. Pep

    Lew Guest

    RVince wrote:
    > Not sure of this, but I think 1.6 was primarily released as the latest,
    > stable 1.5.x but for Vista. Any comments on that statement guys? -R. Vince


    The way I parse your statement it doesn't make any sense, so I must have
    misunderstood. It sounds like you're saying Java 1.6 (a.k.a. "Java 6") is the
    latest release of Java 1.5, which it is not. Java 6 is the latest released
    version of Java. It is stable. How it is "considered" I do not know. Java 5
    is the old version. Java 7 is on the way. Java 6 is the current version of
    the language.

    Incidentally, Java 1.4 is already in "End of Life" from Sun.

    Vista is another issue, but I sure don't see how it is relevant.

    I use Java 6 exclusively unless a client orders me otherwise. (Platforms like
    JME are an obvious exception.) I can think of no reason to prefer an old
    version on platforms that support the current release. Even if the target
    platform is an older version, I use JDK 6 and cross-build to the earlier
    version. ("-target" and "-Xbootclasspath" are your friends there.)

    Use Java 6.

    --
    Lew
     
    Lew, Jul 11, 2007
    #6
  7. "Lew" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    ..
    >
    > I use Java 6 exclusively unless a client orders me otherwise. (Platforms
    > like JME are an obvious exception.)


    Application and web servers are another.

    > I can think of no reason to prefer an old version on platforms that
    > support the current release. Even if the target platform is an older
    > version, I use JDK 6 and cross-build to the earlier version. ("-target"
    > and "-Xbootclasspath" are your friends there.)


    Hmm. If you know that your app has to run under 1.5 (because it's going to
    run in a web server that only supports 1.5), why go to the effort of
    cross-building it, rather than build and test it with the version it will
    run under? If there's a bug in 1.5 that's fixed in 1.6, I'd prefer to
    discover it sooner.
     
    Mike Schilling, Jul 11, 2007
    #7
  8. Pep wrote:
    >> >Hi, is JDK 1.6 considered stable ..

    >>

    >[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
    >>
    >> Message posted via http://www.javakb.com


    Please trim text no longer immediately relevant,
    and post replies directly after what is being replied
    to. Note that 'trimming' above was automatic by
    my web interface to usenet. Most of what it
    requoted would be what I would have chosen to
    delete..

    >Thanks. By upgrading I meant is there much mileage in moving our code
    >base to JDK 1.6.


    I still do not understand why you would want to
    'move' to 1.6, rather than ensure the application
    will run under either 1.5, *or* 1.6.

    But if your application runs just fine* under 1.5,
    and you only intend to support 'a version',
    why 'move' it to 1.6 at all?
    ...
    >So it's really a question of the benefits in doing this.


    I can see very few, if the app. is only advertised to run
    under one version, and the customers have that version.

    >...If, for
    >instance, 1.6 doesnot resolve a whole host of bugs ..


    * Bugs that affect you app.? What bugs?

    >...or similar benefits


    Like what? The only things I can think of besides
    bug fixes are..
    - something linke a newer, better, packing mechanism
    (probably thinking pack200 in Java 1.5), or
    - new functionality - new classes, methods, API's.
    What kind of 'benefits' are you expecting or hoping for?

    --
    Andrew Thompson
    http://www.athompson.info/andrew/

    Message posted via http://www.javakb.com
     
    Andrew Thompson, Jul 12, 2007
    #8
  9. Pep

    Roedy Green Guest

    On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 01:06:00 -0700, Pep <>
    wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

    >Hi, is JDK 1.6 considered stable and should applications be upgraded
    >from JDK 1.5 to 1.6 if so?


    I am having no troubles with it, but then I usually use it with
    -target to some lower level.

    It is basically the same compiler with bugs fixed and new features. If
    you don't use the new features, normally the code should be even
    better.
    --
    Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
    The Java Glossary
    http://mindprod.com
     
    Roedy Green, Jul 12, 2007
    #9
  10. Pep

    Roedy Green Guest

    On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 01:47:47 GMT, "Andrew Thompson" <u32984@uwe>
    wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

    >
    >Please trim text no longer immediately relevant


    If he did that, he would get accused of "censorship". There is no way
    to win! I prefer trimming since the rest is irrelevant and just a
    distraction from my message
    ..
    --
    Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
    The Java Glossary
    http://mindprod.com
     
    Roedy Green, Jul 12, 2007
    #10
  11. Pep

    ~kurt Guest

    Andrew Thompson <u32984@uwe> wrote:
    >
    > I still do not understand why you would want to
    > 'move' to 1.6, rather than ensure the application
    > will run under either 1.5, *or* 1.6.


    Many developers include their own copy of the JRE with their software.
    I never liked that idea much myself - seems silly to have a bunch of
    JREs installed on the computer, and it kinda defeats the platform
    independent advantages of Java (the developer needs to make a different
    package for each OS they support).

    - Kurt
     
    ~kurt, Jul 12, 2007
    #11
  12. Lew wrote:
    >> Not sure of this, but I think 1.6 was primarily released as the latest,
    >> stable 1.5.x but for Vista. Any comments on that statement guys? -R. Vince

    >
    >The way I parse your statement it doesn't make any sense, so I must have
    >misunderstood.


    I had trouble understanding what R. was trying to get
    across with that sentence..

    >Vista is another issue, but I sure don't see how it is relevant.


    There is a Java/security problem with Vista, but AFAIU,
    it affects any Java installed - it is probably just that
    most Vista boxes are getting 1.6.

    --
    Andrew Thompson
    http://www.athompson.info/andrew/

    Message posted via http://www.javakb.com
     
    Andrew Thompson, Jul 12, 2007
    #12
  13. Pep

    Pep Guest

    Andrew Thompson wrote:
    <snip>

    Don't have a problem trimming, I usually do but got lazy this time :)

    > >Thanks. By upgrading I meant is there much mileage in moving our code
    > >base to JDK 1.6.

    >
    > I still do not understand why you would want to
    > 'move' to 1.6, rather than ensure the application
    > will run under either 1.5, *or* 1.6.
    >


    This is a inhouse application and we do not support multiple versions
    of software as there is no need. All our platforms, i.e. servers and
    workstations are rolled out with standard builds, so there is no need
    to support multiple versions.

    > But if your application runs just fine* under 1.5,
    > and you only intend to support 'a version',
    > why 'move' it to 1.6 at all?
    > ..
    > >So it's really a question of the benefits in doing this.

    >
    > I can see very few, if the app. is only advertised to run
    > under one version, and the customers have that version.


    <snip>

    > Like what? The only things I can think of besides
    > bug fixes are..
    > - something linke a newer, better, packing mechanism
    > (probably thinking pack200 in Java 1.5), or
    > - new functionality - new classes, methods, API's.
    > What kind of 'benefits' are you expecting or hoping for?
    >


    Well for instance moving from 1.4 to 1.5 provided better string
    formatting. Myself I am hoping for none really. I just have a pair of
    anal colleagues that will argue the cup is half empty just for the
    hell of it. As senior developer I have the responsibility to decide
    what our IT strategy is with this project. So if nobody is jumping up
    from the community saying something like it really is a" must" due to
    serious security bugs in 1.5 or similar then I have no intention of
    moving up.

    So I guess we'll be staying on 1.5 then, following the "if it ain't
    broke don't fix it" rule :)

    <snip>

    Cheers,
    Pep.
     
    Pep, Jul 12, 2007
    #13
  14. Pep

    Pep Guest

    Roedy Green wrote:
    > On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 01:06:00 -0700, Pep <>
    > wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
    >
    > >Hi, is JDK 1.6 considered stable and should applications be upgraded
    > >from JDK 1.5 to 1.6 if so?

    >
    > I am having no troubles with it, but then I usually use it with
    > -target to some lower level.
    >
    > It is basically the same compiler with bugs fixed and new features. If
    > you don't use the new features, normally the code should be even
    > better.
    > --
    > Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
    > The Java Glossary
    > http://mindprod.com


    Seems the consensus is that there is no viable reason to move up to
    1.5 if we are not planning on using any newer features, which we are
    not. So we'll stay on 1.5 for the forseeable future then, unless
    another part of our company requires a move in the future.

    Thanks everyone for all the input :)

    Pep
     
    Pep, Jul 12, 2007
    #14
  15. Pep

    Oliver Wong Guest

    "Pep" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    ["Should I upgrade to 1.6?"]
    >
    > Well for instance moving from 1.4 to 1.5 provided better string
    > formatting.


    Yes, but if you never use the string formatting, then you won't
    actually take advantage of that particular benefit. Most of the people
    here at my company don't bother with the new "printf" thing (I'm assuming
    that's what you're referring to).

    > Myself I am hoping for none really.


    There are lots changes. Whether or not they are relevant to you, we'd
    need a crystal ball (or access to your source code, and a lot of spare
    time on our hands) to guess.

    > I just have a pair of
    > anal colleagues that will argue the cup is half empty just for the
    > hell of it. As senior developer I have the responsibility to decide
    > what our IT strategy is with this project. So if nobody is jumping up
    > from the community saying something like it really is a" must" due to
    > serious security bugs in 1.5 or similar then I have no intention of
    > moving up.


    This will never happen. If there are serious security bugs in a given
    version, they will update THAT version. Notice that there exists 1.6,
    1.6.0_01b6, 1.6.0_02b5, 1.6.0_02b6, etc. These where the fixes to "serious
    security bug" will show up. Not in 1.7.

    - Oliver
     
    Oliver Wong, Jul 13, 2007
    #15
  16. Pep

    Oliver Wong Guest

    "Pep" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Seems the consensus is that there is no viable reason to move up to
    > 1.5 if we are not planning on using any newer features, which we are
    > not. So we'll stay on 1.5 for the forseeable future then, unless
    > another part of our company requires a move in the future.


    Here's a viable reason:

    If you're always running the latest version of Java, you very rarely
    have to be worried about whether or not the snippet of code you're looking
    at was intended for a newer version of Java than the one you were running.

    I remember a while ago, a bunch of posts were made here saying that
    their compilers were rejecting examples they copied and paste from sites
    or books. The problem was the examples were using generics, and they were
    stuck on a 1.4 compiler.

    I think Java programmers don't ever really "plan" on using newer
    features. Rather, they look at the set of features available to them, and
    then pick the best one for the job. Having more features to choose from
    increases the likelihood of finding a perfect fit between a feature and
    the job which needs to be done.

    I use methods in the API introduced in 1.6 all the time without even
    realizing that it's not available in 1.5. Right now, I'm not actively
    looking at the 1.7 API and drooling, rubbing my hands together, dreaming
    about taking advantage of these new methods. But when 1.7 comes out, I'm
    sure I'll be unknowingly using 1.7-only methods too.

    - Oliver
     
    Oliver Wong, Jul 13, 2007
    #16
  17. ~kurt wrote:
    > Andrew Thompson <u32984@uwe> wrote:
    >> I still do not understand why you would want to
    >> 'move' to 1.6, rather than ensure the application
    >> will run under either 1.5, *or* 1.6.

    >
    > Many developers include their own copy of the JRE with their software.
    > I never liked that idea much myself - seems silly to have a bunch of
    > JREs installed on the computer,


    It makes a lot of sense to me that the installer has the capability
    to install the JRE if the users does not have one.

    The only little extra trick needed is that it should not
    install it if a suitable version already were installed.

    Arne
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=, Jul 14, 2007
    #17
  18. Pep

    Roedy Green Guest

    On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 01:06:00 -0700, Pep <>
    wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

    >Hi, is JDK 1.6 considered stable and should applications be upgraded
    >from JDK 1.5 to 1.6 if so?


    by the way, JDK 1.6.0_02 is out.

    See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jdk.hml

    One advantage not often mentioned is a small SQL databases formerly
    called Derby is included.
    --
    Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
    The Java Glossary
    http://mindprod.com
     
    Roedy Green, Jul 14, 2007
    #18
  19. Pep

    Roedy Green Guest

    On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:37:57 -0400, "Oliver Wong"
    <> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
    said :

    > I use methods in the API introduced in 1.6 all the time without even
    >realizing that it's not available in 1.5. Right now, I'm not actively
    >looking at the 1.7 API and drooling, rubbing my hands together, dreaming
    >about taking advantage of these new methods. But when 1.7 comes out, I'm
    >sure I'll be unknowingly using 1.7-only methods too.


    For in-house stuff the corporation as a whole will decide when it is
    time to flip to the new version. It causes some disruption and there
    is considerable cost to getting the new version installed and the old
    one removed. Java install/uninstall is very shaky even one a brand
    new machine like mine. I nearly always have to do some manual touchup
    to delete old files.

    For preparing material for the world, try to use the oldest version to
    give the widest audience. I have stopped doing that for programs
    aimed at programmers. I figure they are smart enough to have a 1.6
    installed even if they develop for some other version.
    --
    Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
    The Java Glossary
    http://mindprod.com
     
    Roedy Green, Jul 14, 2007
    #19
  20. Pep

    ~kurt Guest

    Arne Vajhøj <> wrote:
    >
    > It makes a lot of sense to me that the installer has the capability
    > to install the JRE if the users does not have one.


    I would agree that is a nice feature to have.

    - Kurt
     
    ~kurt, Jul 15, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Babar
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    485
    Chris Smith
    May 20, 2004
  2. Thomas G. Marshall
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    868
    Thomas G. Marshall
    Aug 6, 2004
  3. Ulf Meinhardt
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    6,499
    Ulf Meinhardt
    Aug 10, 2006
  4. Jaggu
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,039
    Nigel Wade
    Jan 8, 2007
  5. Dundonald
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,422
    Mike Schilling
    Oct 5, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page