appel
|
 |
«
Reply #30 - Posted
2011-07-29 17:44:45 » |
|
I'm gonna wait for Java 10.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
princec
|
|
«
Reply #32 - Posted
2011-07-29 18:56:37 » |
|
And it also seems there's going to be a few months before they release the fixes, so I'll hold off on updating just yet. Cas  |
|
|
|
Games published by our own members! Check 'em out!
|
|
|
Z-Man
|
|
«
Reply #33 - Posted
2011-07-29 21:32:17 » |
|
Well I don't mind that eclipse isn't updated now because I won't be using Java 7 until it's updated xD So I have to wait months either way. Also can someone tell me why they didn't delay the release to fix some of these bugs? They obviously knew about them ahead of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
kappa
|
|
«
Reply #34 - Posted
2011-07-29 22:00:21 » |
|
Also another thing to keep in mind about Java 7 is that its not going be released on Mac OS X at all. Instead Apple are moving all their code to OpenJDK with a view to be done by the Java 8 release at which point Apple will abandon their Java support and pass over control/responsibility for Java on Mac to Oracle/OpenJDK.
What the Java 7 release does though is finally break the back of all the uncertainty and development rot/problems that have surrounded its release. I'm sure they'll iron out all the issues in a few months as they now have some proper resources behind its development (Oracle, IBM, Redhat and Apple). Java is finally back on track to getting some solid development done by the Java 8 release.
|
|
|
|
|
|
namrog84
|
|
«
Reply #35 - Posted
2011-07-29 22:47:43 » |
|
Didnt they also state at some point that Java 8 is supposed to happen relatively quickly after 7 is released. Like maximum 2 years, possibly even 1 year?
Because I thought from 6 to 7 itd be like 5 years or something?
maybe a co-launch of java 8 with windows 8! Hah!
|
"Experience is what you get when you did not get what you wanted"
|
|
|
|
Mads
|
|
«
Reply #36 - Posted
2011-07-30 19:11:43 » |
|
and the pretty new javadoc look  FINALLY. God finally But they still use frames... I mean frames are so bad, they are actually not even valid anymore in html5, or so I've heard Is that not just to allow us to drag the border? Nor div's or tables provides that, and it's basic HTML. No JS or anything to achieve that, which I think is good. |
|
|
|
Cero
|
|
«
Reply #37 - Posted
2011-07-30 20:41:54 » |
|
and the pretty new javadoc look FINALLY. God finally But they still use frames... I mean frames are so bad, they are actually not even valid anymore in html5, or so I've heard Is that not just to allow us to drag the border? Nor div's or tables provides that, and it's basic HTML. No JS or anything to achieve that, which I think is good. well true but, do you really do that ? I've never done that before; mostly because it's sized perfectly |
|
|
|
|
Mads
|
|
«
Reply #38 - Posted
2011-07-30 21:13:39 » |
|
and the pretty new javadoc look FINALLY. God finally But they still use frames... I mean frames are so bad, they are actually not even valid anymore in html5, or so I've heard Is that not just to allow us to drag the border? Nor div's or tables provides that, and it's basic HTML. No JS or anything to achieve that, which I think is good. well true but, do you really do that ? I've never done that before; mostly because it's sized perfectly I actually have used it  It's a nice feature  |
|
|
|
|
JL235
|
|
«
Reply #39 - Posted
2011-07-30 21:38:05 » |
|
and the pretty new javadoc look FINALLY. God finally But they still use frames... I mean frames are so bad, they are actually not even valid anymore in html5, or so I've heard Is that not just to allow us to drag the border? Nor div's or tables provides that, and it's basic HTML. No JS or anything to achieve that, which I think is good. well true but, do you really do that ? I've never done that before; mostly because it's sized perfectly No, but I think it's good that it's supported. The new JavaDoc looks much nicer, and still loads pretty quick, which was always my favourite feature. |
|
|
|
Games published by our own members! Check 'em out!
|
|
|
counterp
|
|
«
Reply #40 - Posted
2011-08-03 22:55:58 » |
|
I guess no one gets as hyped about networking as I do  le cry |
|
|
|
|
|
lhkbob
|
|
«
Reply #41 - Posted
2011-08-03 23:26:19 » |
|
Adobe's ActionScript docs try to resemble Java's layout and functionality, but they've done it all with javascript so every time I click a link to view a Class, it loses my position in the package list (and just recently has switched to showing only classes in the package of my selected class).
Anyway, even though their docs have more JS and fanciness, they are much less useful so I've always liked the simplicity of the Java docs.
|
|
|
|
|
endolf
|
|
«
Reply #42 - Posted
2011-08-03 23:27:29 » |
|
I guess no one gets as hyped about networking as I do le cry Some of us do, but we read the release notes, the SDP stuff states it's for high speed interconnects, like infiniband, not normal networking. Endolf |
|
|
|
|
ra4king
|
|
«
Reply #43 - Posted
2011-08-04 04:28:29 » |
|
I guess no one gets as hyped about networking as I do le cry Oh no, believe me I enjoy and get hyped about networking even more than you  |
|
|
|
|
swpalmer
|
|
«
Reply #44 - Posted
2011-08-06 23:13:16 » |
|
Also another thing to keep in mind about Java 7 is that its not going be released on Mac OS X at all. Instead Apple are moving all their code to OpenJDK with a view to be done by the Java 8 release at which point Apple will abandon their Java support and pass over control/responsibility for Java on Mac to Oracle/OpenJDK.
That is not quite true. Apple is currently actively developing the Apple port of Java 7 via OpenJDK - i.e. it's available now if you want to try the unfinished product. Also, Apple is fully supporting embedding a JRE (or whatever bits you need in a stripped down JRE) in apps and allowing Java apps in the App store when bundled that way (since they no longer rely on "optional" tech that way). There are already Java apps in the store that work that way. (Hey Cas - you should put all the PuppyGames stuff in the App Store!) |
|
|
|
|
princec
|
|
«
Reply #45 - Posted
2011-08-07 02:42:59 » |
|
If there's enough of OpenJDK to run LWJGL apps then sorted Although what's the deal with 32 bit Macs and PPC Macs with regards OpenJDK? Cas |
|
|
|
|
kappa
|
|
«
Reply #46 - Posted
2011-08-07 02:56:18 » |
|
If there's enough of OpenJDK to run LWJGL apps then sorted Although what's the deal with 32 bit Macs and PPC Macs with regards OpenJDK? Cas OS X 10.6+ is a minimum requirement for OpenJDK, so PPC is pretty much out (since 10.5 was the last OS X to support PPC). Many popular Mac application/games don't support PPC these days anyway (e.g. Firefox, Chrome, Steam, Mac App Store, etc). OpenJDK should run fine on 32bit macs though. |
|
|
|
|
|
swpalmer
|
|
«
Reply #47 - Posted
2011-08-07 03:09:14 » |
|
I think OS X 10.6 requires a 64-bit capable Mac, not 100% sure. It must be Intel though. Apple only supports the last two OS releases. PPC Macs are long dead. (Which is sad because I have an old Powerbook that is PPC.) I think the Java stuff that is currently in the App store is using a fragment of OpenJDK 6. Here's a section of the relevant thread from the Apple java-dev email list: It's inside the .app bundle, and yes, it is definitely an OpenJDK derivative. You should contact the author for more info. If he would like to share how he bundled it, we've got a stub page at <http://wikis.sun.com/display/OpenJDK/How+to+embed+a+.jre+bundle+in+your+Mac+app> which we can revise once we get a proper .jre bundle in the build. Cheers, Mike Swingler Java Engineering Apple Inc. On Jun 14, 2011, at 7:28 PM, John Yeary wrote: I was looking for a clue about it using OpenJDK, and I did not find anything. Do you know it uses it for sure? On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Mike Swingler < swingler@apple.com> wrote: There is already an app that does this by embedding OpenJDK: < http://cyberduck.ch/appstore>. MACOSX_PORT-105 would make part of the process easier, but you'd also have to strip out the X11-dependent libraries so you wouldn't be using any other optionally installed components. Regards, Mike Swingler Java Engineering Apple Inc. |
|
|
|
|
kappa
|
|
«
Reply #48 - Posted
2011-08-07 03:13:32 » |
|
I think OS X 10.6 requires a 64-bit capable Mac, not 100% sure. It must be Intel though. Apple only supports the last two OS releases.
10.6 supports both 32bit and 64bit (although it did drop PPC), 10.7 is 64bit only (so yeh that one dropped 32bit), so likely Apple's 32bit support will die after the next OS X release. |
|
|
|
|
|
Z-Man
|
|
«
Reply #49 - Posted
2011-08-14 05:31:39 » |
|
Perhaps I'm reading this incorrectly but it seems to me that this only affects those Apache projects. Have I misread something. |
|
|
|
|
|
gouessej
|
|
«
Reply #50 - Posted
2011-08-24 16:56:56 » |
|
I'm gonna disable these optimizations, do you confirm it is a good idea? 1
| <j2se version="1.6+" href="http://java.sun.com/products/autodl/j2se" initial-heap-size="32m" max-heap-size="256m" java-vm-args="-XX:-UseLoopPredicate -XX:-OptimizeStringConcat -XX:-AggressiveOpts"/> |
|
|
|
|
|
