Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

To Avoid Confusion: Oracle's Confusing New Java Numbering Scheme

timothy posted about a year ago | from the only-have-eyes-for-u dept.

Java 183

twofishy writes "'To avoid the confusion caused by renumbering releases,' Oracle has announced that it is adopting a new numbering scheme for JDK 5.0, JDK 6 and JDK 7. 'The next Limited Update for JDK 7 will be numbered 7u40, and the next 3 CPUs after that will be numbered 7u45, 7u51, and 7u55." The vendor notes that a more elegant solution would require the changing of the version numbering scheme to accommodate different kinds of changes (for example by using 7u44-2 ). However this cannot be implemented outside of a major release, since doing so might break existing code that parses version strings (possibly including the Java auto-update system)" Here's Oracle's announcement.

cancel ×

183 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Java is so 2001 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43719503)

frist

CPU=Critical Patch Update (5, Informative)

fnj (64210) | about a year ago | (#43719507)

An absurd TLA overloading.

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update (4, Funny)

DickBreath (207180) | about a year ago | (#43719599)

> An absurd TLA overloading.

To be more concise, simply say: ATO. (ATO = Absurd TLA Overloading.)

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43720041)

DYM, "TBC: ATO"?

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update (1)

tom17 (659054) | about a year ago | (#43720237)

YHD

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update (4, Insightful)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#43719657)

Oh, a different meaning for an acronym that's been in use for over 50 years. That will sure help with the confusion!

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update (1)

benhattman (1258918) | about a year ago | (#43720963)

No 3 letter acronym is unique. At best, it's unique in the domain you are currently working in.

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43721025)

No 3 letter acronym is unique. At best, it's unique in the domain you are currently working in.

Well this one sure as hell fails that test!

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43719729)

Its not like they could have just said Critical update patch...oh no, we need to make things confusing.

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43719907)

critical update needed today

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update (1)

Gabest (852807) | about a year ago | (#43720003)

This person has obviously never in his life heard of the Central Processing Unit.

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update (1)

ajlitt (19055) | about a year ago | (#43720167)

Its not like they could have just said Critical update patch...oh no, we need to make things confusing.

What happens when admins get confused and pour the contents of their beverage containers into their servers?

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update (5, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | about a year ago | (#43720587)

Its not like they could have just said Critical update patch...oh no, we need to make things confusing.

What happens when admins get confused and pour the contents of their beverage containers into their servers?

We apologize for the confusion in the Critical Patch Updates. The individuals responsible have been sacked. To avoid further confusion, all CPUs will be processed through CUPS, the Critical Update Patch Server.

And now the goddamn printer doesn't work.

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43719741)

So, is it an update to a critical patch or a critical update to a patch, and can't they release proper patches that don't need updates?

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#43719959)

So it's a TLA about a critical CPU that's gonna clear up all this FUD.

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#43720205)

So it's a TLA about a critical CPU that's gonna clear up all this FUD.

LOL, WTF?

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update (3, Funny)

chinton (151403) | about a year ago | (#43720081)

That's like overriding toString() to format your hard-drive.

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update (1)

Likes Microsoft (662147) | about a year ago | (#43720221)

You mean an ATO, obviously.

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43720375)

An absurd Textile Labour Association?

Re:CPU=Critical Patch Update (1)

AngryNick (891056) | about a year ago | (#43720391)

TLA

Three Letter Acronym

Why Does Name Matter? (3, Insightful)

Karganeth (1017580) | about a year ago | (#43719509)

Surely they could just number them from 1 to infinity. Why does name matter? Who knows.

1 to infinity ... and beyond??? (1)

davidwr (791652) | about a year ago | (#43719655)

If Java is "write once, once everywhere" surely it's running in Buzz's [wikipedia.org] space-suit.

Re:1 to infinity ... and beyond??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43719995)

Neil Spacefarer's suit used .NET.

Unfortunately, he asphyxiated to death when Windows Update rebooted the suit automatically.

Re:Why Does Name Matter? (4, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | about a year ago | (#43719785)

Because programs are used to decode/encode the name. It's the same problem with Y2K, user agent strings, and so on. When programs expect data in a certain format, such as two digits for years or a single number after a u in a version string, they don't react well when the format is changed. RTFA.

Re:Why Does Name Matter? (1)

hastalapasta (2923259) | about a year ago | (#43719889)

if you are not descartian dualist then name is as big of a deal as demolishing temples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_soul#Ren_.28name.29 [wikipedia.org]
if you love Nethack like me then you know you get a damage bonus if you name your what was it dagger, maybe to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orcrist#Orcrist [wikipedia.org]

Re:Why Does Name Matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43719931)

Surely they could just number them from 1 to infinity. Why does name matter? Who knows.

There are not enough numbers in that list to uniquely identify all Java updates.

Re:Why Does Name Matter? (5, Funny)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#43720197)

Because the old numbering system of incrementing by 1 was far too complicated. The new system is much easier to understand:

* Limited Update releases will be numbered in multiples of 20.
  * We intend for Critical Patch Updates to continue to use odd numbers. The numbers will be calculated by adding multiples of five to the prior Limited Update and when needed adding one to keep the resulting number odd.
  * Updates containing Norton instead of McAfee will be prime numbers
  * If an update actually contains intentional regressions, it will end in a 9. We recommend you do not install these updates.
  * If the update number is a prime but also a member of the fibonacci sequence, it is considered a "surprise" update: It will be automatically installed, and will contain 1 or more undesirable features. It may also install the ask toolbar.

Obviously this system is far superior.

Re:Why Does Name Matter? (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year ago | (#43720379)

Because the old numbering system of incrementing by 1 was far too complicated. The new system is much easier to understand:

* Limited Update releases will be numbered in multiples of 20.

  * We intend for Critical Patch Updates to continue to use odd numbers. The numbers will be calculated by adding multiples of five to the prior Limited Update and when needed adding one to keep the resulting number odd.

Obviously this system is far superior.

But then there is the even more superior solution which would be to get their shit together. Seriously, the situation with Java is beyond absurd. The number of updates to fix security holes is a few orders of magnitude beyond absurd. How is it even possible to create software so shitty and full of holes?

Re:Why Does Name Matter? (1)

t4ng* (1092951) | about a year ago | (#43721105)

Ah... I think I see were Sun can do some layoffs. First, promote the management of the team that came up with the new numbering. Then layoff all the programmers, except for one intern.

Just like line numbers in BASIC (3, Funny)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about a year ago | (#43719519)

You know, to be able to insert something between two existing lines.

Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#43719521)

Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers like how windows 7 is also 6.1

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about a year ago | (#43719577)

Windows 7 is 6.1 for compatibility reasons. When Vista went to 6.0 it broke a lot of applications that were incorrectly checking the Windows version, like so:

if (MajorVersion >= 5 && MinorVersion >= 1) {

Back when the latest version of Windows was XP, this code worked fine 100% of the time. Of course it fails to pass this check on Vista, where MinorVersion is 0. Windows 7 and Windows 8 are 6.1 and 6.2 respectively since they will pass this check. At least, that's what I've heard.

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers (3, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#43719687)

Who would be stupid enough to check for the OS version that way? It should have been something like:

if ( ( MajorVersion * 10 ) + MinorVersion >= 51 )
{
}

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers (1)

flink (18449) | about a year ago | (#43720555)

Who would be stupid enough to check for the OS version that way? It should have been something like:

if ( ( MajorVersion * 10 ) + MinorVersion >= 51 )
{
}

You know it's possible to have a v4.12, right?

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers (1, Troll)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#43720715)

You know it's possible to have a woosh, right?

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43719835)

That's quite shocking. Where coders that terrible in 2001? The whole point of checking for "this version or higher" is that it will work for this version or higher, not break as soon the version goes up.

Of course, calling windows 7 "7.1" and 8 "8.1" would address this particular issue just as well as "6.1" and "6.2", but they may have had other reasons for being version-conservative.

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about a year ago | (#43720187)

That's quite shocking. Where coders that terrible in 2001? The whole point of checking for "this version or higher" is that it will work for this version or higher, not break as soon the version goes up.

Of course, calling windows 7 "7.1" and 8 "8.1" would address this particular issue just as well as "6.1" and "6.2", but they may have had other reasons for being version-conservative.

The problem with simply checking for "version >= X" is that sometimes X.5 breaks the app. The ideal approach would be to be able to certify later releases on an individual basis. However, that would require updating the app.

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers (1)

Cenan (1892902) | about a year ago | (#43721181)

Or stop trying to be clever and use the fucking number system invented a gazillion years ago to, I dunno, number your versions?
Pick a number and start from there; whenever you fuck something up that needs a new compile, increment the number. There you go, fool proof versioning that even works with the age old less than and greater than comparers.
The only reason people think they need major/minor/build numbers is because some dumbfuck a handful of decades ago decided that the version number needed to be part af the product name, but he wanted to cover up the fact that he sucked at development and had to tack on a lesser number to not completely outrun the integer system with new builds.

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers (1)

xxdinkxx (560434) | about a year ago | (#43719587)

because one is the operating system and the other is the kernel. Every linux distro does the same thing. Ubuntu 13.whatever uses linux 3.8.

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers (2, Informative)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#43720011)

Wrong. Ubuntu uses YY.MM date-based numbering.

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers (1)

phoenix_rizzen (256998) | about a year ago | (#43720799)

Correct ... for the distro version.

The kernel version is 3.whatever.

Two completely separate numbers, incremented separately. Just like Windows OS versions and kernel versions.

Re:Why not copy MS and have 2 ver numbers (1)

David_W (35680) | about a year ago | (#43720363)

They do...

C:\>java -version
java version "1.6.0_43"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_43-b01)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 20.14-b01, mixed mode)

my comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43719527)

v 0.0.2.6.b26b (version 1.2)

Re:my comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43719937)

v.8.0.0.8.1.3.5

Re:my comment (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about a year ago | (#43720263)

v.8.0.0.8.1.3.5

s/u/\./

Cisco gives it two thumbs up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43719557)

Thinks the numbering scheme is second only to its own.

As long as they keep going up (1)

davidwr (791652) | about a year ago | (#43719559)

Going from 7u40 to 7U39-1 would be confusing.

I can just tell my users "don't worry, they never released 41-44."

IQ (4, Funny)

rossdee (243626) | about a year ago | (#43719591)

Mensa can use this as a 'What is the next number in the sequence' for their IQ test.

Re:IQ (5, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#43719637)

I hear Mensa is planning on using the Microsoft Copy dialog instead.

"You have 4 minutes left, then 3 minutes, then 29 minutes, then 1800 years, then 32 seconds, then potato. What is the next number in the sequence?"

Re:IQ (1)

davidwr (791652) | about a year ago | (#43719705)

That depends on how you pronounce [lyrics007.com] "potato".

Re:IQ (3, Funny)

riT-k0MA (1653217) | about a year ago | (#43719721)

"Insufficient Disk Space"

Re:IQ (5, Funny)

Barefoot Monkey (1657313) | about a year ago | (#43719861)

That's easy. The next number in the sequence is (not responding).

Re:IQ (3, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#43720193)

"You have 4 minutes left, then 3 minutes, then 29 minutes, then 1800 years, then 32 seconds, then potato. What is the next number in the sequence?"

A blue screen.

Obligatory.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43719611)

They should have named it: JAVA 3.0

Re:Obligatory.. (1)

wed128 (722152) | about a year ago | (#43719693)

This seems like a joke, but it's actually a good thing how the kernel went to 3.0. They realized that their numbering system was getting out of hand, and that the leading '2' was no longer needed. Emacs did something similar several years ago.

I think that may happen with android in the not distant future (rumours going around that the next update will be 4.3 instead of 5.0). maybe 4.5 will just be 5, then we'll have 6, etc.

I wonder if java will ever stabalize this way? (java 8, 9, 10)

I, for one, welcome our new leading-version-number-dropping-for-readability overlords.

Re:Obligatory.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43720797)

At least Java 8 will be reasonably feature complete. A language without closures just cannot be seriously be considered for GUI development (IMHO). Now if only they could clean up that mess they call "libraries"...

Internal procedure change forces external change (1)

davidwr (791652) | about a year ago | (#43719627)

Why is this change necessary now?

Some of the goals of this numbering scheme are:

        Allow us to assign a fix/enhancement to a specific release in our bug systems. To accomplish this all planned releases must have predictable numbers.

Oh, so the numbering change is for your benefit, not mine.

Re:Internal procedure change forces external chang (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43719675)

Allow us to assign a fix/enhancement to a specific release in our bug systems. To accomplish this all planned releases must have predictable numbers.

Oh, so the numbering change is for your benefit, not mine.

It's for everyone's benefit. This will permit knowing when a bug is slated to be fixed, which currently has to be managed out-of-system.

Re:Internal procedure change forces external chang (1)

homes32 (1265404) | about a year ago | (#43719863)

Dear Oracle, In order to help you with your version numbering issues I have spent many hours inventing the perfect numbering scheme for you. The format is as follows: MajorVersion.Release.BugFix/Security for example: Java 7 update 45 (formally known as 7u45)becomes Java 7.45 Java 7 update 45 emergency security release 5 becomes Java 7.45.5 this allows you to have an unlimited number of security fixes (which you are sure to need) per release without having to rely on complex mathematics to decide what the next update version will be; simply incriminate the Release number. my billing department will be contacting you shortly.

Re:Internal procedure change forces external chang (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43720253)

simply incriminate the Release number

Sadly, this is their current process.

Marvelous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43719629)

An inelegant solution to a non-problem.

Please Die (-1, Flamebait)

crafoo (591629) | about a year ago | (#43719633)

Dear Java, please die. You don't bring anything useful to the table.

Re:Please Die (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#43719701)

Silly kids! Java is for dirty floors, not clean tables!

Re:Please Die (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43719965)

Java is a floor polish.

No! Java is a programming language!

Ha Ha Ha! Java is a floor polish and a programming language!

Re:Please Die (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43719765)

Really? What does this contribute to the conversation?

Re:Please Die (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43719783)

At this point I would be happy as soon as they stop trying to infect my computer with ask toolbar.
I still think that it is strange that it is legal to try to install it that way.

Re:Please Die (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43720047)

Ever heard of Android?

Re:Please Die (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#43720211)

Marvin? Of course. But he's a bit paranoid.

Re:Please Die (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about a year ago | (#43720777)

That's not Java(TM)

Oracle has always had confusing version numbers (4, Informative)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about a year ago | (#43719639)

Every time they try to standardize version numbers, they make it more confusing. 11G database release 1 was 11.0, but release 2 is 11.2. Where was 11.1? App server 9i was actually an 8.0 base. Most of the time I can't even figure out which product I am actually buying.

Re:Oracle has always had confusing version numbers (2)

stevencbrown (238995) | about a year ago | (#43719999)

No it wasn't...
11gR1 is 11.1.x, and 11gR2 is 11.2.x.

11.0 doesn't exist.

I agree 11g badging has been a bit confused for some products (11g WebLogic Server is 10.3.6), but the database versioning is pretty clear.

Numbering suggestion (1)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | about a year ago | (#43719651)

Why not just switch the numbering to the sha of the package. Equally informative...

Simpler solution.. (4, Insightful)

xtal (49134) | about a year ago | (#43719653)

I resolved the issue by removing it.. perhaps, that is the intended effect. Apologies to those with no choice.

Re:Simpler solution.. (1)

WizardFusion (989563) | about a year ago | (#43720183)

Agreed, that and Flash.

Re:Simpler solution.. (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about a year ago | (#43720261)

I've had a new PC for almost a year with no JAVA.

No apps/sites have complained and I run LibreOffice, too.

Re:Simpler solution.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43720525)

I've had a new PC for almost a year with no JAVA.

No apps/sites have complained and I run LibreOffice, too.

If you run Libreoffice, then you run it probably with a custom java-installation inside the LO-install dir. Having Java is not the problem. Using it as a plugin in your browser is!

If you are parsing version strings on Java updates (1)

exabrial (818005) | about a year ago | (#43719767)

You are a terrible terrible programmer and you deserve to be caned by a band of angry Thai policemen.

Re:If you are parsing version strings on Java upda (1)

togofspookware (464119) | about a year ago | (#43720451)

I'm assuming the updater does this to make sure it's getting a newer version than what's already installed. How would you handle it? A single 64-bit number? A history graph à la Git?

Re:If you are parsing version strings on Java upda (1)

phoenix_rizzen (256998) | about a year ago | (#43720839)

The way developers have been doing it for decades, using the de facto standard of major.minor.build version numbers.

IOW, JDK 5 uses 5.x.y numbers, JDK 6 uses 6.x.y numbers, JDK 7 uses 7.x.y numbers. X is incremented for feature releases and resets Y to 0. Y is incremented for security releases.

Simple. Easily parseable. And it the ways things used to be done before the whole stupid "my number needs to be bigger than your number, logic be damned" movement started.

Why not... (1)

FellowConspirator (882908) | about a year ago | (#43719773)

Something simple like: API-level (revision release date)

Isn't something like "Java 7 (20130514)" relatively obvious what it means?

Re:Why not... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43719987)

No good.
It's Java, they'll be needing more than one security fix update per day.

All eggs in 1 basket. It may have been nice... (1)

bussdriver (620565) | about a year ago | (#43720149)

Sun made people feel safe putting their eggs all in 1 basket. Witness the result that many of us said was a foolish move.

C# may be a knock off and not have Oracle but then you have MS holding your eggs; and while MS might not act as badly as Oracle, they have a borg mentality that Oracle does not yet have with Java.

Do not build your business around closed languages. When C# becomes fortran the MS holdings company will still be extracting blood.

Oracle is secure (and just evil,) MS on the other hand has 1 real market success and 2 monopolies that people don't care about or even like. All 3 based on platforms that have a limited future at the scale they are presently. When MS gets more desperate... they already have taken the place of SCO instead of finding another shell corp to perform their legal extortion scheme.

While it is true there is a non-Oracle Java out there; it hardly replaces the official one and is still subject to their whims.

Re:All eggs in 1 basket. It may have been nice... (2)

devman (1163205) | about a year ago | (#43721215)

Java 6 and 7 are both GPL'd with OpenJDK. Nothing says you have to use Oracle's JRE/JDK.

Ask Toolbar (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43719815)

I don't care what they call it so long as I don't have to install any toolbars.

Like seriously what is this 2003? It's crowding out my "Bonzi Buddy"

Apache (2)

slash.jit (2893213) | about a year ago | (#43719837)

Oracle... we don't care. Please just donate Java to Apache.

Re:Apache (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about a year ago | (#43721119)

Oracle... we don't care. Please just donate Java to the trash.

TFYFY.

Oh wait, you mean they already did that?!

Obviously attempting to confuse the Malware (2)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year ago | (#43720005)

It was easier to change the version numbering scheme to break all the current malware rather than fix the myriad of holes in the code.

Why not simply uXY (X=features, Y=security)? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43720075)

They should have chosen to number their updates using two-three digits, the first one representing the feature update and the next the security one. This would have solved their problem while still being understandable.

Why not something normal? (1)

nine-times (778537) | about a year ago | (#43720241)

Why not just do a normal numbering scheme? If you dig into their packages, they sometimes claim stupidly to be version 1 of Java 7 update 17. WTF? Instead of that, how about Oracle just acts with some sanity and call it v. 7.17?

If you need sub versions of 7.17, then call it 7.17.1 and 7.17.2. You know, a sane person might do.

Or how about we all just drop Java since it's terrible and the cause of too many security problems?

Re:Why not something normal? (1)

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) | about a year ago | (#43721317)

You know, that does sound normal.
But you're forgetting that Java 7 is actually Java 1.7, much like Java 6 was actually Java 1.6, and Java 5 was actually Java 1.5, etc.
So there's that implicit "1." that you need to prefix to these version numbers.
So that sentence in the summary should read more like:

"The next Limited Update for JDK 1.7 will be numbered 1.7u40, and the next 3 CPUs after that will be numbered 1.7u45, 1.7u51, and 1.7u55."

I can't wait to see what happens when they finally make it to Java 2.0... Will it be "Java 0"?

At least they're not horsing with the major number (1)

togofspookware (464119) | about a year ago | (#43720387)

I would submit that this is somewhat sensible and that the switch from 1.5 to 5.0 back in the Sun days was far more confusing.

Why not just list the number of bugs per version? (1)

stiggle (649614) | about a year ago | (#43720459)

Or do we not have numbers that go that high?

I wonder if (1)

JustNiz (692889) | about a year ago | (#43720469)

Are their releases really called CPUs?
If so, that is so amazingly stupid it appears actually designed to confuse.

Just use the build/release date (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43720617)

20130514 (year, month, day etc.) as an example of something meaningful.

Not that complex (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43720809)

This is pretty simple. For a feature update, add 20. For a security update, add 5. For retrospective updates (for those "oh crap" releases), use the numbers in-between.

It only gets complicated because they wanted to use odd numbers for security updates. That means a bump by 1 in some cases. It's a bit random, but I imagine it's to do with legacy systems.

This scheme guarantees that the version of Java with the most security patches applied is the one with the highest number. Also, it guarantees that the feature set doesn't regress (eg. replacing 7u20 with 7u33 will not remove features that an app requires).

Why can't they do it like everyone else? (1)

mindmaster064 (690036) | about a year ago | (#43720901)

Microsoft - One big version number. One little one. .Net Framework 2.0, 3.5, etc... easy to know where you are. Security patches don't alter the name unless they're a service pack. Then it would be .Net 3.5 sp 1 whatever. You at least know that as long as you have the update service running you are fully patched up and manually running it will make sure. 7u45 is freaking Chinese - it sounds like something that should be on the side of a submarine. Imagine trying to say one of these numbers on a phone to someone you're trying to help through a problem. You can't overload CPU either; too damn confusing even for me. I won't know whether you will talking about your computer or the software. Especially if it is like 2am and something broken. Java is becoming more and more aggravating the longer Oracle has anything to do with it.

Re:Why can't they do it like everyone else? (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about a year ago | (#43721145)

except the little problem of major component updates coming in v3.51 and the server OS being released with v3.5 on it,so many of your bleeding-edge programs wouldn't run.

I think they fixed this by simply reducing the amount of development going into .NET, thereby reducing the frequency of .net releases.

Re:Why can't they do it like everyone else? (1)

mindmaster064 (690036) | about a year ago | (#43721295)

Actually the .Net philosophy to me seems the polar opposite of Java. .Net releases seem further apart but seem to work better and have more integrated functionality. Personally... after using both for a long time C# + .net wins.... The portability comment isn't even an issue anymore really... Mono is working well in most cases (the gap is mostly in the latest incarnations of asp.net and MVC) and is fast enough to run games so it is fast enough for any business use at least in my mind. Personally, I dislike Microsoft and Oracle but I dislike Oracle way more.

Version numbering simplified (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43720989)

Version is a single number. It is a database key.
Provide a database that maps version numbers to metadata (changelogs, bug fixes, security fixes, compatibility information, marketing name, etc). Make tools so that the database is useful, not just some text file.
Make the version number increase monotonically over time. This is the only contract to enforce with versioning.
Don't shove metadata into the version number.
Let the marketing drones identify your stuff by marketing names. The version number should not be in your marketing.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?