> andrewthommo@gmail.com ():
>
> > > andrewthommo@gmail.com ():
> >
> > (1.4.2_06 not available as auto-download .CAB)
*
> > > Here is the URL of our real applet: http://212.29.213.34/tradetrac.html
...
> I wrote today that the problematic behavior happens not all the time.
> Actually, today they called me from QA to ask why when they run the
> applet it asks
> to install 1.4 version if there is already 1.5 version installed.
> So I seen it myself: on the machine having JRE 1.5.0_05 there was an
> automatic request to install 1.4.2_06 that perfectly worked
There is something bizarre going on here. Although _06 was not listed
on the downlaoad page, and a 'drect fetch' on the URL failed, today I
first
tried that _06 URL again (again failure), but then I tried _05, and got
a
/download/ box for version _06!
>..and it
> continue to run in this version. When you pointed me to the list of
> available installations I thought that maybe SUN removed some of them,
That would not be /too/ strange for Sun, though I am less confident
_06 is not available now - it would make no sense to offer downloads of
1-4-2_01/02/03 (all relatively crappy versions with a security bug)
but not offer later versions like _06.
> because I know that in the past it was available.
I'll trust you on that.
>...But as I say, it
> worked today perfectly, so I'm sure that the problem isn't micro
> version.
...hmmm. I think it has *something* to do with the
appearing/disappearing _06. I'm just not sure what is going on.
>...Still, if you insist, here is changed version:
> http://212.29.213.34/Test03.html
That version did predictably load 1.4.2_03. I got a dialog
advising me to reboot (or something, which I ingored) then
was prompted by a dialog to refresh the page for the _03
JRE - the console confirmed the applet was now running in
1.4.2_03.
So we have 1 'failure to reproduce the problem' using a .CAB
that seemingly is easily accessed.. I suspect this 1.4.2_03
version would also work flawlessly on other browsers.
The question mark is the 1.4.2_06 version - why is it not available
for a direct fetch? Is it actually being removed and again being
made available?
Previously I thought this problem was caused by a missing _06
version, but it seems it is not that straightforward.
Andrew T.
mgolubitsky@gmail.com - 29 Jun 2006 16:35 GMT
andrewthommo@gmail.com ():
> > andrewthommo@gmail.com ():
> >
[quoted text clipped - 60 lines]
>
> Andrew T.
I think that problem might be in deployment.properties file.
I'll check this version...