>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
Neither Ant nor Tomcat follow this approach. >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. The user agent in this case is the Java plugin itself, which, to my knowledge, doesn't cache JARs in releases earlier than J6u10.
