new JDK released 1.7.0_03

Discussion in 'Java' started by Roedy Green, Feb 15, 2012.

  1. Roedy Green

    Roedy Green Guest

    Roedy Green, Feb 15, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Roedy Green

    Jan Burse Guest

    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
    Jan Burse, Feb 15, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Roedy Green

    Roedy Green Guest

    On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:12:20 +0100, Jan Burse <>
    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".
    Roedy Green, Feb 15, 2012
    #3
  4. Roedy Green

    markspace Guest

    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.
    markspace, Feb 15, 2012
    #4
  5. Roedy Green

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    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
    Arne Vajhøj, Feb 16, 2012
    #5
  6. Roedy Green

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 2/15/2012 10:44 AM, Roedy Green wrote:
    > On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:12:20 +0100, Jan Burse<>
    > 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
    Arne Vajhøj, Feb 16, 2012
    #6
  7. In <4f3c55ee$0$290$> 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
    Fredrik Jonson, Feb 16, 2012
    #7
  8. Roedy Green

    Lew Guest

    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
    Lew, Feb 16, 2012
    #8
  9. 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
    Fredrik Jonson, Feb 16, 2012
    #9
  10. Roedy Green

    Lew Guest

    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.
    Lew, Feb 16, 2012
    #10
  11. 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
    Fredrik Jonson, Feb 17, 2012
    #11
  12. Roedy Green

    Lew Guest

    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
    Lew, Feb 17, 2012
    #12
  13. Fredrik Jonson wrote:
    > In <4f3c55ee$0$290$> 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 <>
    "I'm a mechanic, not a doctor." Volker Borchert <>
    Volker Borchert, Feb 18, 2012
    #13
  14. Fredrik Jonson wrote:

    > It seems that Oracle have reserved odd releases solely for security
    > updates, while feature releases are even numbered. [...] 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.


    Interestingly the hypothesis above has now been publicly documented by Oracle:

    "Change to Java SE 7 and Java SE 6 Update Release Numbers

    [...] To date all Critical Patch Updates (CPUs) for Java 7 have been odd
    numbers (JDK 7 Update 1, i.e. 7u1, 7u3, 7u5, etc.), while limited update
    releases have been even numbers (7u2, 7u4, 7u6, etc.)."

    http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/java-update-release-numbers-change-1836624.html

    --
    Fredrik Jonson
    Fredrik Jonson, Oct 17, 2012
    #14
  15. Roedy Green

    Lew Guest

    Fredrik Jonson wrote:
    > Fredrik Jonson wrote:
    >> It seems that Oracle have reserved odd releases solely for security
    >> updates, while feature releases are even numbered. [...] 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.

    >
    > Interestingly the hypothesis above has now been publicly documented by Oracle:
    >
    > "Change to Java SE 7 and Java SE 6 Update Release Numbers
    > [...] To date all Critical Patch Updates (CPUs) for Java 7 have been odd
    > numbers (JDK 7 Update 1, i.e. 7u1, 7u3, 7u5, etc.), while limited update
    > releases have been even numbers (7u2, 7u4, 7u6, etc.)."
    >
    > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/java-update-release-numbers-change-1836624.html


    Actually, that's different from the hypothesis.

    The hypothesis as stated is that Oracle "has reserved" the numbers as stated. Oracle only has
    confirmed that "to date" it has happened that way.

    --
    Lew
    Lew, Oct 17, 2012
    #15
    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. Roedy Green

    JDK 1.6.0_03 is out

    Roedy Green, Oct 3, 2007, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    6,364
    Andrew Thompson
    Oct 3, 2007
  2. Roedy Green

    Something odd with JDK 1.6.0_03

    Roedy Green, Oct 16, 2007, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    945
    Roedy Green
    Nov 3, 2007
  3. Roedy Green
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,373
    Arne Vajhøj
    Aug 6, 2009
  4. Roedy Green
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    626
    Roedy Green
    Aug 11, 2009
  5. Roedy Green
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    2,296
    Arne Vajhoej
    Oct 21, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page