Java 151 Issue?

[ROCLASI]

I see there is already 1.8.0_152 released. is it the same with this one?

I am not sure where you see this. it's not on the java.com site as a download and the Java control panel doesn't prompt me with a newer version when I hit update.

[Gabi Boros]

I see it here : http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/ ... 33155.html ... but I just tested it, and is the same as with u151

[jcompagner]

it seems they backported something to java8 that was already failing for java9 9 (if disabling the compression on the embedded tomcat is fixing this)

The embedded tomcat for servoy 7 is tomcat 6. Even the latest tomcat 6 doesn't fix this. Tomcat 8 and java9 works fine (also with compression enabled as far as i know)

We will not upgrade tomcat of servoy 7, you could potentially try this your self, but the step is to big for that we have Servoy 8+

What does work is WAR deployment (on tomcat 8.x) of a servoy 7.

Or just disable compression on your servoy 7 install if you need to upgrade to a java version that breaks .

[bcusick]

Confirmed that 8.2.1 works with Java 151 without having to take off the compression on Windows Server 2012.

THANKS Johan!

[rafig]

Thank you for this post!
I was being driven mad by a Servoy 7.4.9 solution not working (displaying) correctly suddenly, now I have added/changed the compression to 'off', it works!
Thanks
Rafi

[lwjwillemsen]

Does anyone has some insights / test results concerning web client performance with regards to setting compression on / off?

[jcompagner]

seems they already fixed it for the next java8 release:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8189789

[lwjwillemsen]

seems they already fixed it for the next java8 release

Next release was on 26 Oct 2017: 8u161. Oracle has released 8u161.

JDK-8189789 says (now?) fix for version 8u171.

[jcompagner]

that case is talking about code reviews in November for the changes.
So only a release after November could have a patch.

and i have no idea how they build things, could be for example 3 months notice...
So it could be if the code review was done in december that they can only release it a few months later (and not in a release that is kind of already made and released in January)

[lwjwillemsen]

Yes, that's why it is better to specify the fix-for-Java-release-version number in a java related post (if specified by Oracle).

[jcompagner]

that was a bit hard to do...
because my post is from 26 of October..
and back then the latest comment was:
"Can you please check with JDK 8u162-ea and let us know if you observe the same issue with that , we expect it should be fixed in that version. You can download the same from xxxx"

and then later on November they came to the conclusion that it was not fixed. And they started fixing it and they only really placed that bug in resolved around 8 of January