Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Java > Firefox 2.0.0.1 trashes Java Console

Reply
Thread Tools

Firefox 2.0.0.1 trashes Java Console

 
 
Mickey Segal
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-20-2006
The latest Firefox update (2.0 to 2.0.0.1) de-activates the Java Console and
suggests fixing the problem by getting an updated version of the Java
plugin. Uninstalling JRE 7 build 02 and installing the current pre-release
build 04 (from http://download.java.net/jdk7/binaries/) does not restore the
Java Console in Firefox.

I haven't tried using the latest official release of Java, but one would
hope that the pre-release builds are at least as advanced in all respects.

Does anyone know how to get this working properly?



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Oliver Wong
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-20-2006

"Mickey Segal" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> The latest Firefox update (2.0 to 2.0.0.1) de-activates the Java Console
> and suggests fixing the problem by getting an updated version of the Java
> plugin. Uninstalling JRE 7 build 02 and installing the current
> pre-release build 04 (from http://download.java.net/jdk7/binaries/) does
> not restore the Java Console in Firefox.
>
> I haven't tried using the latest official release of Java, but one would
> hope that the pre-release builds are at least as advanced in all respects.
>
> Does anyone know how to get this working properly?


I've got JDK 1.5.0_06 and JDK 1.6.0, and the console doesn't work there
either.

- Oliver


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mickey Segal
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-20-2006
"Oliver Wong" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:2Jdih.125403$(E-Mail Removed). ..
> I've got JDK 1.5.0_06 and JDK 1.6.0, and the console doesn't work there
> either.


It sounds from this post on mozilla.support.firefox that this is something
Sun needs to fix:

http://groups.google.com/group/mozil...8397452742dcf1

"This is not a problem with Firefox but a problem with how Sun Microsystems
wrote the Java Console extension. They specified in the extension that the
maximum version that it would work on will be Firefox 2.0, they should have
specified the maximum version as 2.0.0.*

When Firefox updated to 2.0.0.1 it checked the installed extensions and
since the Java console extension only specified that it would work with 2.0
it was disabled."


 
Reply With Quote
 
John Ersatznom
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-21-2006
Mickey Segal wrote:
> "Oliver Wong" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:2Jdih.125403$(E-Mail Removed). ..
>
>>I've got JDK 1.5.0_06 and JDK 1.6.0, and the console doesn't work there
>>either.

>
>
> It sounds from this post on mozilla.support.firefox that this is something
> Sun needs to fix:


There is however something that Mozilla needs to fix. I got hit with a
double-dose of screwy behavior. My Firefox announced that there was a
new version available: 1.5.9. I canned the dialog since losing all my
open tabs at the time would have been inconvenient, and went manually to
mozilla.org later. I found that the latest version available was
actually 2.0.0.1, far later than 1.5.9! Here's hoping the 2.0.0.1
auto-update functionality is a bit smarter about detecting what the
latest version *really* is.

Then, of course, I got bit by the "Java Console disabled" thing.

Fortunately, I don't tend to use it, since I'm developing apps not applets.

However, Mozilla's own auto-update code thinking 1.5.9 > 2.0.0.1 makes
me doubt that this is entirely Sun's fault. It looks like any error Sun
made may have been because of confusing, corner-casey behavior in
Mozilla's version number comparator. A comparator that at least *used*
to think 1.5.9 > 2.0.0.1. Of course, 2.0.0.1 > 2.0 is correct, but
requiring funky wildcards to include minor versions seems like a recipe
for confusion and error. It should be "first version NOT supported",
like String's "substring(begin, end+1)" interval idiom, so Sun would
have said "need a new version for 2.1" rather than "OK up to 2.0" and
everything would be fine.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tim Slattery
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-21-2006
John Ersatznom <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Mickey Segal wrote:
>> "Oliver Wong" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:2Jdih.125403$(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>
>>>I've got JDK 1.5.0_06 and JDK 1.6.0, and the console doesn't work there
>>>either.

>>
>>
>> It sounds from this post on mozilla.support.firefox that this is something
>> Sun needs to fix:

>
>There is however something that Mozilla needs to fix. I got hit with a
>double-dose of screwy behavior. My Firefox announced that there was a
>new version available: 1.5.9. I canned the dialog since losing all my
>open tabs at the time would have been inconvenient, and went manually to
>mozilla.org later. I found that the latest version available was
>actually 2.0.0.1, far later than 1.5.9! Here's hoping the 2.0.0.1
>auto-update functionality is a bit smarter about detecting what the
>latest version *really* is.


The 1.* version never offered the upgrade to 2.* as an automatic
upgrade, the way it does for the smaller "point" updates. Apparently
Mozilla considers 1.* and 2.* to be separate applications.

As to losing your tabs: Firefox 2.x doesn't. It will notify you of the
update and ask whether you want to install it now. If you say yes, it
closes the browser, does the necessary, then restarts the browser and
restores all the tabs that were open when it closed. It also opens on
more tab where the "Successful update" page is displayed.

--
Tim Slattery
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Ersatznom
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-21-2006
Tim Slattery wrote:
> The 1.* version never offered the upgrade to 2.* as an automatic
> upgrade, the way it does for the smaller "point" updates. Apparently
> Mozilla considers 1.* and 2.* to be separate applications.


That doesn't make any sense, since they're not.

> As to losing your tabs: Firefox 2.x doesn't.


But the Firefox 1.5.7 I was using at the time would have.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Oliver Wong
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-21-2006
"John Ersatznom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:emd2n0$u4b$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> There is however something that Mozilla needs to fix. I got hit with a
> double-dose of screwy behavior. My Firefox announced that there was a new
> version available: 1.5.9. I canned the dialog since losing all my open
> tabs at the time would have been inconvenient, and went manually to
> mozilla.org later. I found that the latest version available was actually
> 2.0.0.1, far later than 1.5.9! Here's hoping the 2.0.0.1 auto-update
> functionality is a bit smarter about detecting what the latest version
> *really* is.


Actually, I think what you experienced was the intended behaviour. You
mentioned elsewhere in the thread that you were using "1.5.7". "2.0.0.1" is
not considered to be an automatic upgrade for "1.5.7", but "1.5.9" *is*.
It's like how Apache 2.0 and Apache 1.3 are separate products, and both of
them are still actively developed.

[...]

> It should be "first version NOT supported", like String's
> "substring(begin, end+1)" interval idiom, so Sun would have said "need a
> new version for 2.1" rather than "OK up to 2.0" and everything would be
> fine.


Except that Sun (and other plugin developers) probably can't predict the
future. How will they know whether or not a new version of the plugin will
be needed for 2.1, unless they have a copy of Firefox 2.1 to test with?
Contrast this with the fact that they DO have a copy of Firefox 2.0, so they
can state "It works OK with Firefox 2.0. Anything higher, and we're not
making any promises."

- Oliver


 
Reply With Quote
 
John Ersatznom
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-21-2006
Oliver Wong wrote:
> Actually, I think what you experienced was the intended behaviour. You
> mentioned elsewhere in the thread that you were using "1.5.7". "2.0.0.1" is
> not considered to be an automatic upgrade for "1.5.7", but "1.5.9" *is*.
> It's like how Apache 2.0 and Apache 1.3 are separate products, and both of
> them are still actively developed.


Let me get this straight. You're claiming that the intended behavior is
to nag the user about every single minor bugfix or tweak update, but not
to bother informing them about a major upgrade's availability?

That would be equivalent to Windows XP Update constantly nagging you
about bugfixes (which it does on a weekly basis) while Microsoft quietly
stocked store shelves with shrinkwrapped boxes of Windows Vista without
any fanfare and simply hoped people would accidentally stumble onto them
while shopping some day.

Mind you, having Windows Update nag you to upgrade to Vista would be
annoying, because Vista costs money and is as much a downgrade
(performance, DRM) as an upgrade, but Firefox 1.x to 2.0 is a straight
upgrade, and free, rather than a lateral move that costs money.

>>It should be "first version NOT supported", like String's
>>"substring(begin, end+1)" interval idiom, so Sun would have said "need a
>>new version for 2.1" rather than "OK up to 2.0" and everything would be
>>fine.

>
> Except that Sun (and other plugin developers) probably can't predict the
> future. How will they know whether or not a new version of the plugin will
> be needed for 2.1, unless they have a copy of Firefox 2.1 to test with?
> Contrast this with the fact that they DO have a copy of Firefox 2.0, so they
> can state "It works OK with Firefox 2.0. Anything higher, and we're not
> making any promises."


The claim was that Sun should have said it would work with 2.0.0.* or
2.0.* or similarly. The latter definitely amounts to "it may not work
with 2.1" and the former to "it may not work with 2.0.1". It's a matter
of whether you specify the end point or one past the end point, and in
this case it looks like requiring specifying the end point was the more
confusing choice.

More generally, plugin developers would have the problem of guessing
exactly what the first future version would be where it no longer worked
(or the last where it did). Maybe Mozilla should take a page from Sun's
book here, and just publish an interface that plugins will always work
if they adhere to, and keep a separate version (like serialVersionUID)
for just the interface, which changes only when an incompatible change
to the interface is made that won't work with old plugins.

Better still, they could have done what most software has been doing
since the 80s or earlier, and been backward compatible with older
versions. Any plugin that worked in Firefox x would then work in Firefox
x+1, but changes to the interface, when such were made, would mean some
plugins designed for x+1 might not work in x.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Oliver Wong
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-21-2006

"John Ersatznom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:emeec0$bj$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Oliver Wong wrote:
>> Actually, I think what you experienced was the intended behaviour.
>> You mentioned elsewhere in the thread that you were using "1.5.7".
>> "2.0.0.1" is not considered to be an automatic upgrade for "1.5.7", but
>> "1.5.9" *is*. It's like how Apache 2.0 and Apache 1.3 are separate
>> products, and both of them are still actively developed.

>
> Let me get this straight. You're claiming that the intended behavior is to
> nag the user about every single minor bugfix or tweak update, but not to
> bother informing them about a major upgrade's availability?

[...]

No. The intended behaviour is to notify the user of updates available to
software that is installed on his/her computer, and not to notify them of
updates to software which isn't installed on his/her computer. Given that
the FireFox 2.0 and Firefox 1.5 series are considered different products by
Mozilla, a FireFox 1.5 user should not be notified about a FireFox 2.0
update, just as much as a Opera user shouldn't be notified about a FireFox
2.0 update.

>
> That would be equivalent to Windows XP Update constantly nagging you about
> bugfixes (which it does on a weekly basis) while Microsoft quietly stocked
> store shelves with shrinkwrapped boxes of Windows Vista without any
> fanfare and simply hoped people would accidentally stumble onto them while
> shopping some day.
>
> Mind you, having Windows Update nag you to upgrade to Vista would be
> annoying, because Vista costs money and is as much a downgrade
> (performance, DRM) as an upgrade,


Actually, yeah, your comparison is apt. Some people feel that 1.5 is
better than 2.X. Rather than **** those people off, Mozilla felt that 2.0
should be considered a completely seperate product, and 1.5 will continue to
be actively developed in parallel with 2.0

> but Firefox 1.x to 2.0 is a straight upgrade, and free, rather than a
> lateral move that costs money.


People disagree with this assertion.

>
>>>It should be "first version NOT supported", like String's
>>>"substring(begin, end+1)" interval idiom, so Sun would have said "need a
>>>new version for 2.1" rather than "OK up to 2.0" and everything would be
>>>fine.

>>
>> Except that Sun (and other plugin developers) probably can't predict
>> the future. How will they know whether or not a new version of the plugin
>> will be needed for 2.1, unless they have a copy of Firefox 2.1 to test
>> with? Contrast this with the fact that they DO have a copy of Firefox
>> 2.0, so they can state "It works OK with Firefox 2.0. Anything higher,
>> and we're not making any promises."

>
> The claim was that Sun should have said it would work with 2.0.0.* or
> 2.0.* or similarly. The latter definitely amounts to "it may not work with
> 2.1" and the former to "it may not work with 2.0.1". It's a matter of
> whether you specify the end point or one past the end point, and in this
> case it looks like requiring specifying the end point was the more
> confusing choice.


Right. I guess I was focusing more on the "need a new version" instead
of "*maybe* need a new version".

>
> More generally, plugin developers would have the problem of guessing
> exactly what the first future version would be where it no longer worked
> (or the last where it did). Maybe Mozilla should take a page from Sun's
> book here, and just publish an interface that plugins will always work if
> they adhere to, and keep a separate version (like serialVersionUID) for
> just the interface, which changes only when an incompatible change to the
> interface is made that won't work with old plugins.
>
> Better still, they could have done what most software has been doing since
> the 80s or earlier, and been backward compatible with older versions. Any
> plugin that worked in Firefox x would then work in Firefox x+1, but
> changes to the interface, when such were made, would mean some plugins
> designed for x+1 might not work in x.


Well, dem's the apples...

- Oliver


 
Reply With Quote
 
Tim Slattery
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-21-2006
John Ersatznom <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Oliver Wong wrote:
>> Actually, I think what you experienced was the intended behaviour. You
>> mentioned elsewhere in the thread that you were using "1.5.7". "2.0.0.1" is
>> not considered to be an automatic upgrade for "1.5.7", but "1.5.9" *is*.
>> It's like how Apache 2.0 and Apache 1.3 are separate products, and both of
>> them are still actively developed.

>
>Let me get this straight. You're claiming that the intended behavior is
>to nag the user about every single minor bugfix or tweak update, but not
>to bother informing them about a major upgrade's availability?


Apparently, yes.

>That would be equivalent to Windows XP Update constantly nagging you
>about bugfixes (which it does on a weekly basis) while Microsoft quietly
>stocked store shelves with shrinkwrapped boxes of Windows Vista without
>any fanfare and simply hoped people would accidentally stumble onto them
>while shopping some day.


AFAIK, Windows Update doesn't let you know about Vista or offer to
upgrade you to that system.

--
Tim Slattery
(E-Mail Removed)
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Google trashes Linux application development. Mike Easter Computer Support 0 05-31-2009 06:36 AM
Unbelievable, Easy News trashes arbitrary message bodies from Perl groups sln@netherlands.com Perl Misc 14 05-06-2009 06:37 AM
Invoking a CGI method in external program trashes form params usenet@DavidFilmer.com Perl Misc 2 09-20-2007 04:00 AM
Visual Studio .Net trashes HTML code in ASP.Net projects Tom Wells ASP .Net 2 01-04-2005 04:27 PM
CSS Property changes via Javascript trashes CSS print version Julie Siebel Javascript 4 02-25-2004 01:29 PM



Advertisments