FYI, the same applies to all major Linux distributions (Debian and Ubuntu come to mind), so it's not just RedHat.
> The main argument I have against it is that it creates more work for > developers. RedHat library issues aside, what do we actually lose by not > including the version numbers in the file names? 1) Standardization. At least from the sampling that I've looked at (which is rather large), every JAR file I saw in a release archive had its version in the name, including every single Apache project that I looked at. Given an industry standard, that should be the starting point from which we base our decision. The onus is on the counter-point to prove a compelling reason to not put our version in there. From this debate, clearly those reasons are in dispute, which is why we call for a vote. 2) Possible caching issues in the legacy (pre-6u10) java plug-in. To be clear: I haven't researched this - the point just occurred to me a few minutes ago. But I know that file names are often used as cache keys, and as much as user agents *should* issue a HEAD request, they often don't.
