i know agents still compiled by default, against Java 1.5. Are these fixes needed for backwards compatibility? It's annoying fix lists etc only give fixes, not new features.
not sure. but if they update java 6 runtime, why adding another one? and vice versa: why bother updating Java 6 runtime, if they are replacing it with Java 8 runtime.
... surfaces only when no information is provided. As it's the case with this. If features would be delivered they'd be on the roadmap - as seen on the MWLUG slides. There was not much.
Would you wait for buying a new car if the car dealer would say that he has no idea when and if a new model will be delivered?
We saw on several Connect roadmaps in 2015 and 2016 announcements (tentatively, as usual). So there are things there that could easily be announced with a delivery date as some of them are already - probably since a long time - finished and could be delivered. But for some reasons IBM doesn't. The question is "Why?".
Going a step further... even the MWLUG roadmap slides didn't show that much for 2017 across the products. So 4 months to go and still no plan(s).
It is my understanding that support for java 8 will be made available in two installments spread across FP7 and FP8. It is likely IBM will clarify their position a little better at ICON UK.
Comments
Still Required?
Submitted by Paul Withers on
i know agents still compiled by default, against Java 1.5. Are these fixes needed for backwards compatibility? It's annoying fix lists etc only give fixes, not new features.
Re: Still Required?
Submitted by martin jinoch on
not sure. but if they update java 6 runtime, why adding another one? and vice versa: why bother updating Java 6 runtime, if they are replacing it with Java 8 runtime.
Security fixes
Submitted by Sven Hasselbach on
These are security fixes which are affecting all of IBMs JRE. It would not make any sense not to fix the issues, even if Java 8 is comming or not.
Re: Security fixes
Submitted by martin jinoch on
but why fixing component that is going to be replaced in the same release by newer version?
Where did you find the
Submitted by Sven Hasselbach on
Where did you find the information that FP7 upgrades the JRE to Java 8?
re: Where did you find the
Submitted by martin jinoch on
It has been said several times, that things promised for 9.0.2 will be included in fixpacks
Sure. But no one said that it
Submitted by Sven Hasselbach on
Sure. But no one said that it will be in FP 7. Maybe in FP 12. Or FP 999.
Speculations
Submitted by Fredrik Malmborg on
Speculations is the mother of evil. Let's wait and see.
+100
Submitted by Heiko Voigt on
@Frederik: Totally agree. @Martin: Jeeze, just wait and see. Or just run away in silence :-). Just kidding.
Speculation...
Submitted by Michael Wagner on
... surfaces only when no information is provided. As it's the case with this. If features would be delivered they'd be on the roadmap - as seen on the MWLUG slides. There was not much.
Would you wait for buying a new car if the car dealer would say that he has no idea when and if a new model will be delivered?
We saw on several Connect roadmaps in 2015 and 2016 announcements (tentatively, as usual). So there are things there that could easily be announced with a delivery date as some of them are already - probably since a long time - finished and could be delivered. But for some reasons IBM doesn't. The question is "Why?".
Going a step further... even the MWLUG roadmap slides didn't show that much for 2017 across the products. So 4 months to go and still no plan(s).
Java 8 Will be Part of FP7
Submitted by Peter Presnell on
It is my understanding that support for java 8 will be made available in two installments spread across FP7 and FP8. It is likely IBM will clarify their position a little better at ICON UK.
Where can I find this
Submitted by Sven Hasselbach on
Where can I find this information? Can you give me a link or something else which can be verified? Thanks in advance.
I was told.....
Submitted by Darren Duke on
At MWLUG that Java was hopefully in FP7 for Domino and the client would be a bit behind that. Trying to find out if that is still the case.
Add new comment