Re: NOD32---Found infected .jar file, but only gave me "LEAVE" button


"Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ycedneXlLOZfAF7ZRVny2Q@xxxxxxxxx

"Duane Arnold" <Yeah-Don't-bother-@that's-right.BET> wrote in message
news:urMwg.8689$vO.4876@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gYGdna1CN5VxF17ZRVnyvw@xxxxxxxxx

"Duane Arnold" <Yeah-Don't-bother-@that's-right.BET> wrote in message
news:5KLwg.1925$gF6.46@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The simple answer is yes due to older versions that must stay on the
machine due to any given version being executed at the Web server. All
Web servers are not running the same version JRE or .Net and the older
versions must stay on the machine.



Not so - 'good' Java apps will work in the latest version of Java
available on any machine.
The ones that don't, are ones that either don't fully comply with the
specification, or are attempting to utilise undocumented functionality
or exploits!

I don't doubt it. I don't use Java in Web solutions.


With .NET, the difference between v1.1 and v2 is significant - it's more
than just an update, and could almost be considered a different
platform, hence the need to keep both on the system if you're running
software that needs each.


.Net is backwards compatible with its older versions. So any thing that
was done in .Net 1.1 should work in 2.0. The ECMA and ISO who control the
.NET Framework (MS doesn't own it) to run across platforms and to be used
by multiple languages other than what MS has on the table is not going to
allow that.

A .Net application can specially indicate what version of the .Net
Framework it's going to use and will look for that version.on the
machine. There are 3 versions of the .NET Framework that I know about
version 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0.



.NET 1.1 Applications will NOT necessarily run on .NET 2.0 - and .NET 2
apps will not run on .NET 1.x (although if of limited scope they may) -
which is the reason that you have to have both versions installed.
There is NO enforced backward compatibility betwen major versions -
although .NET 1.0 apps will run on .NET 1.1, since that was an update to
1.0, not a total revision.

I believe that there are no plans for backward compatibility in v3 of
.NET, either.

No, you don't understand what I am talking about. .NET not only runs for Web
solutions but it runs Windows Desktop solutions, NT services and console
application and many other application solutions. The core of .NET is not
changing that much so it should be a none version issue with a control or
fratures that was written in version 1.1 as opposed to the same features
being used in 2.0 or 3.0 for that matter.

Granted that there are features in v2.0 that are not in v1.0 or v1.1 and if
a developer wants to use those features, then he or she must go to the
latest version to use them. But that doesn't not mean that a control or
frature the was written using v1.x will not work in v 2.0

Now, if the feature or control has changed interfaces between 1.1 and 2.0,
then that feature or control must be converted to use the latest. That's
what I mean in backwards compatibility.

There is no way a company using .Net solutions is going to stand for total
change of its solutions because of a version change. A vast majority of the
..NET features are backwards compatible, just like VB.NET is some aspects is
still backwards compatible with VB 6 code and it doesn't have to be
converted to VB.NET in order for the code to be executed in a VB.NET
solution.

MS has already has been down that path of knowing what not to due when it
went from VS 5 languages to VS 6 languages and all controls on the forms
that were in version 5 had to be rewritten to work in version 6 by the
developer and I am sure it was an uproar about that, as I was pissing and
scramming about it with other developers.

Duane :)



.