JDK 7 Developer Preview
blogs.sun.com
JDK 7 Developer Preview
1–9 of 9 posts
Re: JDK 7 Developer Preview
#2Why are they sending the page with the "Content-Type: text/plain" header?
Re: JDK 7 Developer Preview
#3Why are they sending the page with the "Content-Type: text/plain" header?
They don't, at least not on my ff.
Re: JDK 7 Developer Preview
#4Features:
http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7/milestones/
List of general goals: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7/features/
Dynamic languages should see a performance increase, apps requiring high concurrency : http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7/features/#f515
Re: JDK 7 Developer Preview
#5Why are they sending the page with the "Content-Type: text/plain" header?
Server: Sun-Java-System-Web-Server/7.0
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:27:58 GMT
X-robots-tag: index,follow
Last-Modified: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:20:31 GMT
Expires: Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 GMT
Content-Type: text/html;charset=utf-8
Content-Length: 22882
200 OKRe: JDK 7 Developer Preview
#6It's interesting that there is no Mac version of this. Perhaps an indicator that JDK 7 for Mac is going to be delayed?
Re: JDK 7 Developer Preview
#7It's interesting that there is no Mac version of this. Perhaps an indicator that JDK 7 for Mac is going to be delayed?
I've been using OpenJDK builds found at http://code.google.com/p/openjdk-osx-build/. As far as I can tell, the OpenJDK project itself does not include the port as part of the JDK7 release but more so as a related project between Oracle and Apple.
Re: JDK 7 Developer Preview
#8It's interesting that there is no Mac version of this. Perhaps an indicator that JDK 7 for Mac is going to be delayed?
The Mac OS X port will not be ready in time for JDK 7. It's more of a JDK 8 timeframe project. In the meantime, you can build it yourself; the only feature difference from bsd-port is i386/x86-64 universal binary support.
Re: JDK 7 Developer Preview
#9Why are they sending the page with the "Content-Type: text/plain" header?
Must have been a temporary problem, seems like it's sending the correct headers now.
(For the record, I had the problem in both Chrome and Firefox)