Which JAVA version to target?
31 Message(s) by 14 Author(s) originally posted in java machine
| From: wizofaus |
Date: Monday, June 12, 2006
|
Are there any up-to-date
statistics available that give a good idea of
what JAVA
version most web users have installed on their
machine s?
I'm developing a JAVA
applet as part of a web site, and I'd like to
know that most users will be able to view it without any issues - as it
is, if I compile it to
target JDK 1.5, all the machines other than my
own that I have tested it on won't
load the applet, and worse still,
do not give any sensible user
feedback as to why. I
accept there will
also be a percentage of users with an exceptionally old JAVA version
installed (or worse still, none at all), but I'd like to keep this to a
minimum without sacrificing too many
feature s that come with the later
JAVA versions.
| From: Nate Smith |
Date: Monday, June 12, 2006
|
wrote in
message :
Are there any up-to-date statistics available that give a good idea of
what JAVA version most web users have installed on their machines?
I'm developing a JAVA applet as part of a web site, and I'd like to
know that most users will be able to view it without any issues - as it
is, if I compile it to target JDK 1.5, all the machines other than my
own that I have tested it on won't load the applet, and worse still,
do not give any sensible user feedback as to why. I accept there will
also be a percentage of users with an exceptionally old JAVA version
installed (or worse still, none at all), but I'd like to keep this to a
minimum without sacrificing too many features that come with the later
JAVA versions.
well, i'd stay with 1.4.lat.est, then.
that's what I hate about JAVA - no upward
compatibility .
other than that, it's fun!
- nate
| From: Sudden Disruption |
Date: Monday, June 12, 2006
|
wizofaus,
Are there any up-to-date statistics available that give a good idea of
what JAVA version most web users have installed on their machines?
Great question.
And while we're at it, what percentage of websites have a JAVA
component?
Someone must keep
track of this stuff.
It might help promote JAVA's adoption.
Sudden Disruption
--
Sudden View...
the radical
option for editing
text
http://www.sudden.net/
http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com
| From: asj |
Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2006
|
wrote in message:
Are there any up-to-date statistics available that give a good idea of
what JAVA version most web users have installed on their machines?
With regards to JAVA penetration of the desktop
browser , the latest
stat is here:
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2006/June/JAVA.php
I'd strongly suggest using 1.4x
| From: Thomas Hawtin |
Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2006
|
wrote in message:
wrote in message:
Are there any up-to-date statistics available that give a good idea of
what JAVA version most web users have installed on their machines?
[...]
I'd strongly suggest using 1.4x
Based on what reasons? I assume most people use the
Windows on-line
automatic update thing, which means they will be using 1.5. OTOH, perhaps
lots of corporate machines are stuck on ye olde 1.4.
Tom Hawtin
--
Unemployed
English JAVA
programmer
http://jroller.com/page/tackline/
| From: wizofaus |
Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2006
|
wrote in message:
wrote in message:
> Are there any up-to-date statistics available that give a good idea of
> what JAVA version most web users have installed on their machines?
With regards to JAVA penetration of the desktop browser, the latest
stat is here:
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2006/June/JAVA.php
I'd strongly suggest using 1.4x
That's my
current intention. It means no generics, which as a
C++
programmer is frustrating, but I can live with it.
The site you gave does not actually give any version information though,
from what I can see.
Presumably it's not too hard to throw together some JAVAscript/JAVA
combination that will detect the current JAVA version and give a
sensible
error if it's not adequate (or even present), along with a
link to
down load a latest VM.
| From: Andrew T. |
Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2006
|
wrote in message:
....
I'm developing a JAVA applet as part of a web site, and I'd like to
know that most users will be able to view it without any issues - as it
is, if I compile it to target JDK 1.5, all the machines other than my
own that I have tested it on won't load the applet, and worse still,
do not give any sensible user feedback as to why.
It doesn't have to be that way. E.G.
1. An applet that uses generics can be compiled with a
class
format of 1.4. Then JAVA 1.4 can load the applet and pop a dialog
warning the user that it requires 1.5.
2. A JAVA 1.1 applet can load an entire other applet (so it can check
for necessary JAVA and load the 1.5 applet)
3. JWS wrapping the applet can specify a JAVA minimum version.
HTH
Andrew T.
| From: wizofaus |
Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2006
|
wrote in message:
wrote in message:
....
> I'm developing a JAVA applet as part of a web site, and I'd like to
> know that most users will be able to view it without any issues - as it
> is, if I compile it to target JDK 1.5, all the machines other than my
> own that I have tested it on won't load the applet, and worse still,
> do not give any sensible user feedback as to why.
It doesn't have to be that way. E.G.
1. An applet that uses generics can be compiled with a class
format of 1.4. Then JAVA 1.4 can load the applet and pop a dialog
warning the user that it requires 1.5.
That interests me...but at least with NetBeans, I have not been able to
get it to target an earlier version. You say a warning - what's likely
to occur if they continue to use the
application ?
2. A JAVA 1.1 applet can load an entire other applet (so it can check
for necessary JAVA and load the 1.5 applet)
It does seem from what I have read elsewhere that this is the only
reliable way of gracefully handling older
JVM /
JRE installations that
works across all browsers.
3. JWS wrapping the applet can specify a JAVA minimum version.
I gather JWS is JAVA web start - which seems to be related to starting
standalone applications, which I have no need to do at this
point .
The main criteria I've for the application is for it to "just work":
that is, I should be able to
walk up to almost any reasonably
up-to-date system, access the relavent web page, and have the applet
available and functioning. Anything that requires any
sort of download
or setup
procedure is a no-no.
Of course, there will always be a percentage of users whose systems
are not adequately configured, and I want to be able to
handle those as
gracefully as possible, but the main aim is to keep those cases to a
minimum.
| From: Nate Smith |
Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2006
|
wrote in message:
The main criteria I've for the application is for it to "just work":
that is, I should be able to walk up to almost any reasonably
up-to-date system, access the relavent web page, and have the applet
available and functioning. Anything that requires any sort of download
or setup procedure is a no-no.
Of course, there will always be a percentage of users whose systems
are not adequately configured, and I want to be able to handle those as
gracefully as possible, but the main aim is to keep those cases to a
minimum.
I hear ya.- nate
| From: The_Sage |
Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2006
|
Reply to article by: wizofaus@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date written: 12 Jun 2006 17:25:52 -0700
MsgID:<1150158352.799695.267550@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Are there any up-to-date statistics available that give a good idea of
what JAVA version most web users have installed on their machines?
I'm developing a JAVA applet as part of a web site, and I'd like to
know that most users will be able to view it without any issues - as it
is, if I compile it to target JDK 1.5, all the machines other than my
own that I have tested it on won't load the applet, and worse still,
>do not give any sensible user feedback as to why. I accept there will
also be a percentage of users with an exceptionally old JAVA version
installed (or worse still, none at all), but I'd like to keep this to a
minimum without sacrificing too many features that come with the later
JAVA versions.
This is the web and you should use
HTML , DHTML, CSS, animated gifs, jpg,
zip s,
JAVAscript, etc, whenever and wherever possible. There is no good reason to use
JAVA unless you've something necessary for your audience that can only
conveyed using JAVA. Flash and JAVA and other
technology should be reserved for
rare occasions and compatibility should be restricted to no more than two
revisions back. That means when using advanced technology, you should alienate
those in your audience who refuse to keep up with technology. Since the higher
the technology the more of your audience you alienate, hence the reason to keep
it to a minimum.
The Sage
=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm
"All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality
-- history, religion, duty, social position --
all were illusions, mere opium fantasies"
John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman
=============================================================
| From: Chris Uppal |
Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2006
|
wrote in message:
> I'd strongly suggest using 1.4x
That's my current intention. It means no generics, which as a C++
programmer is frustrating, but I can live with it.
Take heart ! The absence of generics will probably make this easier for
you -- JAVA generics resemble C++ templates in so few ways that your C++
experience'd be likely to get in the way.
-- chris
| From: Oliver Wong |
Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2006
|
This is the web and you should use HTML, DHTML, CSS, animated gifs, jpg,
zips,
JAVAscript, etc, whenever and wherever possible. There is no good reason
to use
JAVA unless you've something necessary for your audience that can only
conveyed using JAVA.
From what I heard, every browser has a slightly different
API (application
programming interface)exposed to
JAVAScript. If you do not want to
write browser specific
code , JAVA might be
the way to go.
Flash and JAVA and other technology should be reserved for
rare occasions and compatibility should be restricted to no more than two
revisions back. That means when using advanced technology, you should
alienate
those in your audience who refuse to keep up with technology. Since the
higher
the technology the more of your audience you alienate, hence the reason to
keep
it to a minimum.
Are you saying the OP should go with the more recent technology, or go
with older technology?
- Oliver
| From: The Ghost In The Machine |
Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2006
|
In comp.lang.JAVA.advocacy, Oliver Wong
<owong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in message
on Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:46:22 GMT
<OqUjg.39447$771.33987@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
This is the web and you should use HTML, DHTML, CSS,
animated gifs, jpg, zips, JAVAscript, etc, whenever
and wherever possible. There is no good reason to use
JAVA unless you've something necessary for your audience that can only
conveyed using JAVA.
From what I heard, every browser has a slightly different API (application programming interface)exposed to
JAVAScript. If you do not want to write browser specific code, JAVA might be
the way to go.
JAVA applets are far heavier than JAVAscript. Of course
applets in this
context appear to be a bodge to work
around a
broken implementation of what's supposed to be
standard JAVAscript.
But at least applets are single-behavior -- if the
environment's set up properly and the proper tags are used.
<APPLE T> has been deprecated, and
<OBJECT> as suggested
by W3 does not quite work. IE needs something *very*
specific -- and in fact it looks an awful lot like an
ActiveX reference (which makes sense since the JAVA
plugin is an ActiveX implementation, which just happens
to
sandbox JAVA).
<APPLET> was nice and clean, and
<OBJECT> as specified by W3
is not too bad, but
Microsoft goofed even that up.
Thanks, Microsoft, for breaking *both*.
</sarcasm>
In any event, JAVA .jar files *ARE* zip archives, with some
minor addons (the only one I'm aware of is META-INF/
MAN IFEST.MF).
Flash and JAVA and other technology should be reserved for
rare occasions and compatibility should be restricted to no more than two
revisions back. That means when using advanced technology, you should
alienate
those in your audience who refuse to keep up with technology. Since the
higher
the technology the more of your audience you alienate, hence the reason to
keep
it to a minimum.
Are you saying the OP should go with the more recent technology, or go
with older technology?
Go with technology that
support s the most revenue [*].
This may be specific to the business one's in; for example,
if one knows that the customers will be Linux, then
one can either go with a
Firefox -only
solution (great,
especially with embedded
SVG s) or with a solution that
is as light as possible in the goofiness possible with
JAVAscript, applets, JNLP/JAVA Web Start, layering, and
XML transformations (since browsers such as dillo and lynx
do not appreciate all of the niceties thereof -- in fact,
they do not really appreciate *any* thereof).
With an IE-only solution, one might be able to have slightly
more flexibility (since IE attempts to do it all) but one
also has to deal with IE's brokenness in a number of key
areas, such as embedded SVGs, CSS2, and
PNG transparency.
Longer term, I for one hope IE's idiocies are dealt with,
either by shooting IE, or by Microsoft fixing its bugs
nice and robustly. (Given their track record, I'd worry.)
Unfortunately, IE is the dominant browser.
- Oliver
[*] customers roughly = revenue but it's not 1-1, obviously.
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxx
Windows Vista. Because it's time to
refresh your hardware. Trust us.
| From: wizofaus |
Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2006
|
wrote in message:
>Reply to article by: wizofaus@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Date written: 12 Jun 2006 17:25:52 -0700
>MsgID:<1150158352.799695.267550@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Are there any up-to-date statistics available that give a good idea of
>what JAVA version most web users have installed on their machines?
<snip>
This is the web and you should use HTML, DHTML, CSS, animated gifs, jpg, zips,
JAVAscript, etc, whenever and wherever possible. There is no good reason to use
JAVA unless you've something necessary for your audience that can only
conveyed using JAVA. Flash and JAVA and other technology should be reserved for
rare occasions and compatibility should be restricted to no more than two
revisions back. That means when using advanced technology, you should alienate
those in your audience who refuse to keep up with technology. Since the higher
the technology the more of your audience you alienate, hence the reason to keep
it to a minimum.
The Sage
The applet is essentially a
WYSIWYG graphical form editor - supports
drawing boxes, lines, text-boxes, images etc. on to a form, and moving,
resizing etc. with the mouse. I do not doubt that it might (at a
stretch) be possible with JAVAscript, but JAVAscript simply does not
have the support libraries available that JAVA does.
It's the only part of the application so far that requires JAVA: the
rest is all CGI-backed DHTML.
And yes, I generally agree that trying to support old technology for
the sake of a larger market share is generally a short-sighted plan,
but it's basically about striking a reasonable balance: there's no
point trying to take advantage of every last little feature of the
latest and greatest version of a particular technology if only 1% of
your intended user
base will be able to
run your software, and equally,
it's foolish to battle on with ancient feature-poor technology just for
the sake of being able to support a handful of extra users that within
a year or so will no doubt end up upgrading their systems anyway.
| From: wizofaus |
Date: Thursday, June 15, 2006
|
wrote in message:
wrote in message:
> > I'd strongly suggest using 1.4x
>
> That's my current intention. It means no generics, which as a C++
> programmer is frustrating, but I can live with it.
Take heart ! The absence of generics will probably make this easier for
you -- JAVA generics resemble C++ templates in so few ways that your C++
experience'd be likely to get in the way.
True, but for instance, I just wasted at least an hour today trying to
figure out why I was getting an ArrayStoreException - turned out it was
because I was accidentally adding the wrong
object type to a Vector
(and subsequently converting it to an array). Being able to declare as
a Vector
< > with the right type would've saved me that drama, as the
compiler would've picked it straight away.
| From: Chris Uppal |
Date: Thursday, June 15, 2006
|
wrote in message:
[me:]
> Take heart ! The absence of generics will probably make this easier
> for you -- JAVA generics resemble C++ templates in so few ways that
> your C++ experience'd be likely to get in the way.
>
True, but for instance, I just wasted at least an hour today trying to
figure out why I was getting an ArrayStoreException - turned out it was
because I was accidentally adding the wrong object type to a Vector
(and subsequently converting it to an array).
I am surprised.
-- chris
| From: Sudden Disruption |
Date: Thursday, June 15, 2006
|
wizofaus,
> This is the web and you should use HTML, DHTML, CSS, animated gifs, jpg, zips,
> JAVAscript, etc
Excellent advice Sage. As simple as possible, but no simpler.
latest and greatest version of a particular technology if only 1% of
your intended user base will be able to run your software, and equally,
it's foolish to battle on with ancient feature-poor technology just for
It's the old
law of disproportionality. Shoot for the sweet spot in
the middle. Fuck the fringes. They will be addressed by some nich
market anyway.
Being able to declare as a Vector< > with the right type would've saved me that
drama, as the compiler would've picked it straight away.
The strength of strong typing originally brought to the world by
Modula-2. It was called the bondage and discipline
language and lots
of people hated it - right up until they started debugging.. The more
you are FORCED to define, the less will be assumed.
Beware the assumption.Sudden Disruption
--
Sudden View...
the radical option for editing text
http://www.sudden.net/
http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com
| From: Oliver Wong |
Date: Thursday, June 15, 2006
|
The applet is essentially a WYSIWYG graphical form editor - supports
drawing boxes, lines, text-boxes, images etc. on to a form, and moving,
resizing etc. with the mouse. I do not doubt that it might (at a
stretch) be possible with JAVAscript, but JAVAscript simply does not
have the support libraries available that JAVA does.
You might be interested in
http://www.ajaxsketch.com/
- Oliver
| From: Dag Sunde |
Date: Thursday, June 15, 2006
|
wrote in message:
The applet is essentially a WYSIWYG graphical form editor - supports
drawing boxes, lines, text-boxes, images etc. on to a form, and
moving, resizing etc. with the mouse. I do not doubt that it might
(at a stretch) be possible with JAVAscript, but JAVAscript simply
does not have the support libraries available that JAVA does.
You might be interested in http://www.ajaxsketch.com/
Nice...
Their motto is "Ajax for everyone...", so I tried it in IE...
"OOPS! - Firefox 1.5 (or higher) Required..."
:-D
--
Dag.
| From: wizofaus |
Date: Thursday, June 15, 2006
|
wrote in message:
wrote in message:
The applet is essentially a WYSIWYG graphical form editor - supports
drawing boxes, lines, text-boxes, images etc. on to a form, and
moving, resizing etc. with the mouse. I do not doubt that it might
(at a stretch) be possible with JAVAscript, but JAVAscript simply
does not have the support libraries available that JAVA does.
>
> You might be interested in
http://www.ajaxsketch.com/
>
Nice...
Their motto is "Ajax for everyone...", so I tried it in IE...
"OOPS! - Firefox 1.5 (or higher) Required..."
It's certainly impressive for what it is (though obviously incomplete -
undo/redo appears not to work, and I could not see anywhere to set the
rounded corners on rects), but anything that does not work under even
the latest IE is hardly viable at this point. I actually wanted to use
SVG originally as the basis for my form editor, but SVG does not
natively support
embedding HTML text. Mine has an in-place text editor
that is basically a mini-word-
process or, allowing the
control of text
formatting, paragraph alignment, bullets & numberings etc. etc. I
actually know this much is quite doable in JAVAscript, as I have seen it
done (FCKEditor), but it was reasonably straightforward in JAVA, using
the HTMLEditorKit/JTextPane classes (although it needed a lot of
tweaking to get things to behave the way they should).
| From: wizofaus |
Date: Thursday, June 15, 2006
|
wrote in message:
wrote in message:
[me:]
> > Take heart ! The absence of generics will probably make this easier
> > for you -- JAVA generics resemble C++ templates in so few ways that
> > your C++ experience'd be likely to get in the way.
> >
> True, but for instance, I just wasted at least an hour today trying to
> figure out why I was getting an ArrayStoreException - turned out it was
> because I was accidentally adding the wrong object type to a Vector
> (and subsequently converting it to an array).
I am surprised.
Surprised by what? Maybe years as a C++ programmer has made me
careless from being too reliant on the compiler catching my
screw-ups...
| From: Andrew T. |
Date: Friday, June 16, 2006
|
wrote in message:
wrote in message:
wrote in message:
> ....
> > I'm developing a JAVA applet as part of a web site, and I'd like to
> > know that most users will be able to view it without any issues
...
> 1. An applet that uses generics can be compiled with a class
> format of 1.4. Then JAVA 1.4 can load the applet and pop a dialog
> warning the user that it requires 1.5.
That interests me...but at least with NetBeans, I have not been able to
get it to target an earlier version.
The commands are in the basic tools distributed
with the SDK, but you need access to the earlier
JRE version to make the process work correctly.
I
expect Netbeans has ways to
connect into that,
but I'm not here to tell you how to work an
IDE I
do not use (often).
..You say a warning - what's likely
to occur if they continue to use the application?
A variety of things that usually result in exceptions
or errors.
> 2. A JAVA 1.1 applet can load an entire other applet (so it can check
> for necessary JAVA and load the 1.5 applet)
It does seem from what I have read elsewhere that this is the only
reliable way of gracefully handling older JVM/JRE installations that
works across all browsers.
Nope. Some browsers have no JAVA at all. Your best bet
for them is the (HTML 4.01 invalid) nested OBJECT/EMBED elements.
> 3. JWS wrapping the applet can specify a JAVA minimum version.
>
I gather JWS is JAVA web start - which seems to be related to starting
standalone applications, which I have no need to do at this point.
Nope. JWS can be used to launch applets as well.
(If I had more time I'd hunt down the
URL of an applet/
wrote in message that is JWS'd in both modes..)
Andrew T.
| From: Andrew T. |
Date: Friday, June 16, 2006
|
wrote in message:
wrote in message:
...
> I gather JWS is JAVA web start - which seems to be related to starting
> standalone applications, which I have no need to do at this point.
Nope. JWS can be used to launch applets as well.
(If I had more time I'd hunt down the URL of an applet/
wrote in message that is JWS'd in both modes..)
E.G.
http://www.physci.org/pc/jtest.jnlp
http://www.physci.org/pc/jtest-applet.jnlp
HTH
Andrew T.
| From: Chris Uppal |
Date: Friday, June 16, 2006
|
wrote in message:
> > True, but for instance, I just wasted at least an hour today trying to
> > figure out why I was getting an ArrayStoreException - turned out it
> > was because I was accidentally adding the wrong object type to a
> > Vector (and subsequently converting it to an array).
>
> I am surprised.
>
Surprised by what? Maybe years as a C++ programmer has made me
careless from being too reliant on the compiler catching my
screw-ups...
Maybe something of that sort. I work with dymamically-typed OO languages a
lot, and in my experience such errors are very rare (hence my surprise). It's
not that I take extra care to avoid type errors in an language without type
checking -- it's just not natural to make them in the first place.
So maybe you've become "careless", but to me it seems more likely that the
way you stucture your code is fundamentally different from the way I structure
mine. That'd be supported by it taking so long to track down the error.
On the rare occasions when I do make type errors, it is normally obvious in
seconds, and fixed in not much longer.
Or maybe you were just unlucky ;-)
-- chris
| From: Thomas Kellerer |
Date: Friday, June 16, 2006
|
wrote in message:
That interests me...but at least with NetBeans, I have not been able to
get it to target an earlier version.
Right
click on your project, then choose Properties
In the "Source"
node , choose Source level: 1.4
Then click on the "Compiling" node, add "-target 1.4" (without the
quotes) into the input
field labelled "Additional Compiler Options"
Or - as an alternative - use a JDK 1.4 for compiling inside NetBeans
(Set it up through Tools -> JAVA Platform manager, then select it in the
"Libraries" node of your project properties)
Thomas
| From: Thomas Hawtin |
Date: Friday, June 16, 2006
|
wrote in message:
In the "Source" node, choose Source level: 1.4
Then click on the "Compiling" node, add "-target 1.4" (without the
quotes) into the input field labelled "Additional Compiler Options"
You should also use -bootclasspath to point to the 1.4 rt.jar, unless
you want to get totally confused.
Tom Hawtin
--
Unemployed English JAVA programmer
http://jroller.com/page/tackline/
| From: Mike Amling |
Date: Monday, June 19, 2006
|
wrote in message:
wrote in message:
wrote in message:
Are there any up-to-date statistics available that give a good idea of
what JAVA version most web users have installed on their machines?
With regards to JAVA penetration of the desktop browser, the latest
stat is here:
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2006/June/JAVA.php
I'd strongly suggest using 1.4x
That's my current intention. It means no generics, which as a C++
programmer is frustrating, but I can live with it.
That's odd. I have not used it myself, but I'd read that JAVA's
generics facility involves no changes to the bytecode language. What
happens if you try to compile with
JAVAc -
source 1.5 -target 1.4
--Mike Amling
| From: u.int.32.t |
Date: Monday, June 19, 2006
|
wrote in message:
wrote in message:
wrote in message:
> I'd strongly suggest using 1.4x
That's my current intention. It means no generics, which as a C++
programmer is frustrating, but I can live with it.
It isnt too hard to use JAVA -target 1.4 => target the 1.4 jvm using
the JAVA 1.5 compiler.
Theoretically
| From: Thomas Hawtin |
Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2006
|
wrote in message:
wrote in message:
I'd strongly suggest using 1.4x
That's my current intention. It means no generics, which as a C++
programmer is frustrating, but I can live with it.
That's odd. I have not used it myself, but I'd read that JAVA's
generics facility involves no changes to the bytecode language.
The bytecode instructions themselves remain the same, but there are
extra attributes added to the class files.
What
happens if you try to compile with
JAVAc -source 1.5 -target 1.4
Try it. It wont.
1.5 has the undocumented and unsupported -source jsr14 (IIRC).
Does anyone have any figures for which versions browsers have installed?
The online
installer for Windows should've updated most to 1.5.
Windows/Solaris/Linux users that have used offline installers in the
last year and three quarters will presumably mostly installed 1.5. No
idea about Mac users, other than Apple is usually around a year behind.
Tom Hawtin
--
Unemployed English JAVA programmer
http://jroller.com/page/tackline/
| From: wizofaus |
Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2006
|
wrote in message:
wrote in message:
> What
> happens if you try to compile with
> JAVAc -source 1.5 -target 1.4
Try it. It wont.
1.5 has the undocumented and unsupported -source jsr14 (IIRC).
Does anyone have any figures for which versions browsers have installed?
The online installer for Windows should've updated most to 1.5.
Windows/Solaris/Linux users that have used offline installers in the
last year and three quarters will presumably mostly installed 1.5. No
idea about Mac users, other than Apple is usually around a year behind.
Most of the Windows systems I have tried it on only have 1.4.2_03, so
that's my target at this point. But apparently even that's not enough
- there are things that fail mysteriously under that version that work
fine when you've the 1.5 JRE installed (e.g. JFrame.add() vs
JFrame.setContentPane()), so you absolutely have to test on a system
that only has 1.4.2 installed.
The advantages of using Generics do not seem enough to be worth the risk
that something's going to be behave unpredictably on another system, so
I'm just getting used to having my code littered with casts. The fact
that it took till version 1.5 of JAVA until there were typed resizable
collections in the language is a little baffling to me.
| From: Thomas Hawtin |
Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2006
|
wrote in message:
Most of the Windows systems I have tried it on only have 1.4.2_03, so
Seems a
bit old. 1.4.2 is up to at least 1.4.2_11 (some of those
security updates).
that's my target at this point. But apparently even that's not enough
- there are things that fail mysteriously under that version that work
fine when you've the 1.5 JRE installed (e.g. JFrame.add() vs
JFrame.setContentPane()), so you absolutely have to test on a system
that only has 1.4.2 installed.
I'm sure you can develop it on a machine that has both 1.5 and 1.4.2
installed.
I'm just getting used to having my code littered with casts. The fact
that it took till version 1.5 of JAVA until there were typed resizable
collections in the language is a little baffling to me.
It was dragged out, but it is not so easy to retrofit such a feature.
Tom Hawtin
--
Unemployed English JAVA programmer
http://jroller.com/page/tackline/
Next Message: Disabling hotspot/optimisations
Blogs related to Which JAVA version to target?
What do java programmers version control?
In this vein, items that get placed into my
version control include
... I do not include class files, or jars that get created by my “build” or “dist”
target.
... Let me know what you, as a
Java programmer, put into your
version control
...
Test Coverage (updated)
version="1.0"?>
[details deleted] <target ...
Internet Drive-By Shootings
Many respectable web sites are inadvertently allowing attackers to target their users. ... The "ie0601.cgi" script is just one version in a series of drive-by ... The Java ByteVerifier bug used in this script was fixed in April of 2003, ...
Container gardening - CSI In Brief - CBP.gov
Italy Implements the Container Security Initiative and Begins to Target and Pre-Screen . ... Source: java.sun.com The Apache Tomcat 5.5 Servlet/JSP Container - Documentation Index ... Apache Tomcat version 5.5 implements the Servlet ... ...
One-Jar
<target name="dist" depends="compile"> ... ZipException: No such file or directory at java.util.zip. ... Once I’d got the latest version from CVS, everything worked wonderfully. ...
What Experts Say About The Java Language: Humorous Quotes
Choose a set of host computers and devices that you will claim your program runs on (your “target hosts”). Choose an edition and version of the Java Platform that you feel is well enough distributed among your target hosts. ...