Jump to content

Talk:Java version history

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

alpha and beta releases?

[edit]

I couldn't find any kind of supporting pages or articles to reference, but it might be worth it to add the old alpha and beta releases of Java to this page. I remember they were incompatible with each other, so on the old Gamelan site, you had to click on either alpha applets or beta applets depending on which version you could run. --Vollers 15:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Versions paragraphs titles

[edit]

The current "template" for Java versions has some shortcomings: it basically contains the "official" name of the release, then its date, finishing by "supported" or "unsupported" depending on the status of the release. The problem is that its a very long name, subject to errors when linking, and even the link will change over time (when the status goes from "supported" to "unsupported"). For example: "J2SE 1.4 (February 6, 2002) (Unsupported)".

The result is that when a specific release is referenced elsewhere in wikipedia, it usually reference the Java Platform, Standard Edition article, which I think is not the best to do, and even maybe is not really intended by those who made the link. Plus this pattern seems to be very specific to this article, for example it's much more simple in the .NET Framework, Microsoft Silverlight, Adobe Flex, etc... articles.

Hence my proposal: Why not simplify the titles, keeping only the first part, for example "J2SE 1.4" and not the current "J2SE 1.4 (February 6, 2002) (Unsupported)". The support status and the date of the release can very well be added at the beginning of each release paragraph. It would then be very simple to add a redirect to any of these paragraphs, and be sure that the link will never change. Hervegirod (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense for me. Nabbia (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, people seem to want to keep the version dates. As it will not change, I'm OK with that. However, I fixed the redirects to J2SE xx and Java xx, so please people: do not add the "supported" and "unsupported" tags back ;) Hervegirod (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20090510: Bad Grammar: "Some programs allow to convert"

[edit]

Added by anon, 20090510: Bad grammer in sentence beginning: "Some programs allow to convert Java programs from one version of [...]". I don't know the precise, proper correction. (Thx for Wikipedia!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.133.160 (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. And you'll be taken more seriously about grammar problems when you spell "grammar" correctly. --Mwn3d (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OS X Java versions?

[edit]

Since Apple distributes their own Java implementation, and the updates are NOT cumulative, it'd be very helpful to have an article of which Java versions were included in each OS X version and which updates are required to be downloaded and installed to bring it up to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 01:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

jdk 1.0.2

[edit]

Why is JDK 1.0.2 missing, it was the first stable version available for the public. I know, it is long ago, but still? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Java version numbering not uniform

[edit]

Till Java 5, the versioning is Java 1.X. With Java 5, the article drops the "1.". Is this the real standard? If it is so, please add an information that the naming was changed with a reference. Sae1962 (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right, we should explain this in the article. Hervegirod (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the big number is the version of the Java language, but the number with "1." is the version of the JDK. The JDK is still on version 1 because it still has the same set of executables, and works in roughly the same way, despite big changes in to we've had Java version 2, version 5.0 and version 6; with corresonding JDK versions 1.4.2, 1.5.0, 1.6.0 and so on. I think Sun indicated when Java 5.0 was released, that the second number in the JDK version would from then on always correspond to the version number of the language; but with Oracle taking over, all bets are off (203.184.62.151 (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Java 8 Release Schedule

[edit]

"Java 8 is expected in Summer 2013". Please note that Summer is both at the beginning of the year (January, February) and at the end of the year (December). There is a big gap between these periods (11 months). Could we be a bit more accurate. Maybe "Java 8 is expected in the Summer of 2012/2013" or "Java 8 is expected in the Summer of 2013/2014". Or maybe, we should not use season names, as on the other side of a little imaginary line called the equator, the other HALF of the planet has seasons with the same name in very different times of the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesselong (talk • contribs) 13:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Java 6 EOL

[edit]

Oracle changes Date of EOL to Nov 2012. http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/eol-135779.html So the sentence "Java 6 has been discontinued as of may 7 2012" is not correct any more. See https://blogs.oracle.com/henrik/entry/updated_java_6_eol_date

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.106.184.18 (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Java 7 Undocumented compiler features?

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Java_version_history&diff=509318650&oldid=508802874

As you can see, there was "The ability to cast from an Object type to a primitive type directly" edited in and back out. My problem here is: I can't find any documentation or JSR stating that this is true. BUT it seems to be true: 

java.util.ArrayList bla = new java.util.ArrayList();
bla.add(Integer.valueOf(1));
int id = (int)bla.get(0);
System.out.println(id);

Is invalid code in java 6 (error at line 3) and valid in 1.7, it even runs. Looking at the bytecode the compiler inserts an explicit cast to Integer. When you cast to float it casts to Float and so on.

Is it a compiler bug maybe? Eclipse JDT does the same! We need to find the JSR! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.91.255.70 (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, oh, if Java starts to allow such errors, it'll become the same buggy crap as Javascript. That's totally the wrong direction, just imagine all the runtime errors this would create...Oracle, please don't smoke this great language out of our servers! --178.197.236.189 (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Reference 29, http://java.sun.com/javase/downloads/ea/6u10/deploymentToolkit.jsp, is (effectively) broken (it redirects to a generic page). Other links starting with http://java.sun.com/ are probably broken as well. --Mortense (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GPU

[edit]

"There are plans to add automatic parallelization using OpenCL" Those plans have been scrapped as Oracle are now targeting HSA for version 9. Meaning they will support AMD but not Nvidia as the latter are not implementing HSA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.123.50 (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mention OpenJDK 6

[edit]

Confusingly, OpenJDK 6 is still getting updates, unlike the Java 6 binaries from Oracle. It would probably be a good idea to talk about this. —SamB (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in sections titles

[edit]

Please move the dates from the section titles to the body of each section. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Thanks - • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! BlitzGreg (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SE v EE versions

[edit]

This article covers the Standard Edition (SE) versions, but doesn't mention or link to the Enterprise Edition (EE) versions as per Java EE version history. John a s (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the logic of that? If it is only for SE, then that should be made clearer in the introduction, there should be a link to the corresponsing EE article immediately under the title, and potentially the title should be amended.
Alternatively, if this is a general article with a general title, then both SE and EE should be included.
—DIV (1.129.105.76 (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC))[reply]

JOptionPane

[edit]

Just curious, was JOptionPane class added to Swing in Java 5? Lehasa (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. It exists since the very first version of Swing, i.e. added in jdk 1.2 aka Java 2 88.66.182.249 (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion between Java, the language, and the Sun/Oracle implementation

[edit]

Starting in the introductory paragraphs, and continuing throughout the article, there is confusion between Java, the language, and its API, with the reference implementation of it provided by first Sun Microsystems, and then Oracle after the takeover.

For example, the first two paragraphs of the introduction are discussing the Java language specification and the expansion of the class library. These are changes that would have to be made in any implementation of Java to satisfy its compatibility requirements. The third paragraph is still talking about the language primarily, even if the reason for delays to Java 8 are related to the Oracle implementation.

The fourth paragraph, however, is talking about the Oracle JDK, not the language. This is what creates the confusion mentioned above with OpenJDK 6 as there are still supported implementations of Java 6 and 7 provided by others. The fourth paragraph only applies to the provision of publicly available binaries of Oracle's implementation.

This confusion continues throughout the article, with new language and class library features being listed along with implementation changes, like JVM improvements. Cleaning this up would require significant restructuring of the article, expanding the currently fairly meaningless 'Implementations' section to contain the data on the Sun/Oracle history. I think this is worthwhile, especially in clarifying how OpenJDK and alternate implementations fit into this picture, but would appreciate some feedback before going ahead.

Gnu andrew (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. This issue persists. Currently, the Java SE 16 section describes nothing at all about Java SE 16, it only gives details about planned changes in (presumably) HotSpot/OpenJDK. Wootery (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Java version history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Java version history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Java version history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Java version history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Truth in dropped text?

[edit]

About dropping this text; I wrote some of it, but if I recall, not all of it. FYI: I also wrote similar text at Java_(software_platform), i.e. adding text to the lead on web browser support (and some text in the main text). I believe the history of "applets" a major driver for Java was true, but no longer. It's a question how much we should say in Windows XP support, but it was no longer supported then Oracle made changes to get it back to work; I assume that may still aplply to latest version. comp.arch (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lambda Linking in Java8

[edit]

Shouldn't the lambda link in the java8 section point to the lambda_calculus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.p.s (talk • contribs) 08:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JRE

[edit]

I would like the article to explain that although the latest JRE is JRE 8, Java 8 is not the latest version. And also to explain why, and how that works (or doesn't work?).

And also mention any announced/reported plans for future major JRE versions (or lack thereof?).

—DIV (1.129.105.76 (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Release dates

[edit]

Hey folks, Right now the main page shows a table when the java version was released. This is good - it gives us visitors a simple and quick way to determine how old a particular java version is.

However had, what I am missing is the DAY when something was released, such as "12th February 1998" or something like that.

I would like to explain why I think the exact day may be useful. Right now a new version is coming up, but the main page here says "March 2020". Well, march has 31 days, so it makes a difference if it is released on first march, as opposed to 30th march right? Currently we have the 5th march 2020. If the exact day would be shown on the overview-table, then we could instantly know whether it was already released, or is still-to-be-released. Now this is not a huge deal for current java versions - we can just visit e. g. openjdk and download the binaries. But still, I think it would be more CONVENIENT in the long run if we could also add (and display) the DAY when a release was made available, specifically. Thanks for reading and considering this; it may be a slight long-term improvement for the current main article. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Versioning scheme

[edit]

Hi, does someone know how the versioning scheme works, or where I could find the answer to that question, i. e. what is the "0" for in the versioning scheme? --Alien4 (talk) 10:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JDK 15 JEP list

[edit]

The JEP list should be moved from the top of the page to the Java SE 15 section. -Xbony2 (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Salix alba (talk): 08:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

<source> and <syntaxhighlight> don't show any changes

[edit]

Within #Java SE 13 a comment states that using <syntaxhighlight> fails. In what, exactly? I previewed it using <syntaxhighlight> on a desktop and didn't notice any differences. Can anyone specify what the problem is? (And that should possibly be added to the comment within the article to help clarify the issue.)

(Side note: the "en" part seems to be thought of as out of the string by the syntax highlighter, by both the <syntaxhighlight> and <source> tags, so that failure doesn't seem like a reason to stay on a deprecated tag) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellacioussatyr (talk • contribs) 23:17, May 7, 2021 (UTC)

Dunno what they were doing. It works fine for me as well. I changed it so that it's properly formatted. SWinxy (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About the Windows XP compatibility

[edit]

quote on my last edit note on the edit history: "I tested it by trying to run minecraft on XP(although I tested and put WES2009 screenshot on twitter) and Vista but I don't know if it should meets the rules of wiki so I put the link here.https://twitter.com/Linglin1992/status/1356660700848955397" I was tested on my computer and get those result,but I don't know the twitter link should put into the wiki so I decided not to.I think it might be better to discussion about it.And the Java 6 update 7 could run on Windows 98 was also added by me way back when the wikipedia was not blocked on my country(China)and Windows 98 still could get Updates onWindows Update on those days,if that also needs a twitter page for some sort I could create a new one. Today I visit wikipedia by using VPN and I don't like create an account for it for only editing pages which I'm not often to do and I still new to the editing rules yet.Because of VPN,my IP address could be changed frequently.Last time when I was editing the wiki page about the XP compatibility my IP address was 116.206.100.186.I'm not the person which edited the Windows 11 wikipage before. -45.152.113.76 (45.152.113.76) 00:25, 15 Sep 2021 (GMT+8)

Add back table of contents?

[edit]

Is there a reason to not have a table of contents? --Tuxayo (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The TOC was taking up quite a lot of room, wasting lots of space, which is why I changed it to be what it is currently. The TOC generated Java x and Java x updates. Last I checked the template wouldn't allow for line breaks (ie for the 'history,' 'future features,' 'implementations,' 'references,' and 'external links' sections). iirc there is a way to set the TOC to only do a set number of levels, but I decided against that. SWinxy (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add the feature of file/directory watchers, added in Java 7

[edit]

For more information:

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:IOS version history which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article feels unnecessary. Isn't this what release notes are for?

[edit]

When I envision the best possible version of this article, it's Java's own release notes copied word-for-word. There's no real debate over what features were delivered: For major changes, it's just the JEPs that were delivered. And release notes cover the remaining (more granular) changes.

We can't get more authoritative or more readable than OpenJDK's release notes; e.g. https://openjdk.org/projects/jdk/20/. Perhaps we should just link to them without any prose? Then there's no text that needs maintenance, and people can devote their time to other articles.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 16:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Class File Format Version

[edit]

Why did it start with 45? 2001:9E8:CACF:7100:AC76:AA37:D1E4:3F87 (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Separate release JEPs and preview JEPs

[edit]

Instead of listing a release's JEPs in numerical order, it would be more readable if all the final/released JEPs were listed separately from the preview ones. 72.185.217.120 (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Java_version_history&oldid=1264122293"