Let's call it wicket 1.5, use java 1.6 and make it happen..
Then, after we finished this, we can try to backport wicket 1.5 to java
1.5 ... if anybody want's it.
mm:)
Then I'd suggest renaming Wicket 1.6 to Wicket 2.0, for the psychological
impact, and to state clearly that this is a break in Wicket development.
As for Java 1.5 vs 1.6, companies upgraded to 1.5 because it came with a
huge lot of new features and improvements that their architects felt could
that would be weird.
if wicket 1.3 to wicket 1.4 would be just a .1 increase because of java 4 to
5
but because of java 6 we suddenly have to call it wicket 2.0?
purely looking at the java version used wicket 1.3 to 1.4 is a way bigger
leap then wicket 1.4 to 1.5
(looking at the changes wicket
Hi,
that would be weird.
I think the current situation with a deprecated release wicket 2.0 is also
weird. Perhaps the wicket developers should jump over the 2.0 border and
create a 3.0/2.5 (whatever 2.0 :)) release instead of a 1.5 ?
Best Regards,
Ilja Pavkovic
if wicket 1.3 to
we can try to avoid it for some time if possible, but if some stuff
as nicer
for the core then i am against a separate jar and ugly build system
+1 for 1.6
In my opinion, giving people more reasons to use a newer JVM is better
(as if speed were not enough)
Seems a shame to futz with a
-1 to 1.6 dependencies in Wicket core.
+1 to additional 1.6-dependent features in separate jars.
Eirik
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/wicket-1.5-build-is-failing-because-of-1.6-deps...-tp26792764p26913700.html
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive
in Wicket core.
+1 to additional 1.6-dependent features in separate jars.
Eirik
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/wicket-1.5-build-is-failing-because-of-1.6-deps...-tp26792764p26913700.html
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
True, but my point was that for someone on the user end (the one
running the webapp, not the developers), the speed alone should be a
very compelling reason to switch to 1.6.
Neil,
I am afraid you miss the most important argument: whether the core
developer *want* to develop with Java 5. Its mostly their free time and
love they put in Wicket, we should never forget that. (Of course they
probably want to have users, etc. But in the end it is their decision.)
Exactly!
Also those organizations, which want to stay with very old and normally
unsupported software versions usually budget for extra support. Java 1.5
is not supported normally any more by Sun, so they will be bying Sun
retirement support anyway or running all their business systems on
And let's not forget that nobody is suggesting moving current Wicket
versions to Java 1.6. For those poor souls who are stuck developing
for Java 1.5 there is still Wicket 1.4, or even 1.3 for that matter.
The increase in speed alone is reason enough to switch to 1.6 in my opinion.
but isn't that increase of speed only relevant during runtime? imho it doesn't
matter if you compile with 1.5
or 1.6 as long as you run it with 1.6
Regards
Kai
--- Original Nachricht ---
Absender: Jeroen Steenbeeke
Datum: 22.12.2009 12:47
And let's not forget that nobody is suggesting moving
-1 to JDK 1.6
The possibility of excluding even 1% of potential users for the negligible
benefit of using 1.6-specific features would be a bad decision. 1.5 is
simply the right jdk to be developing frameworks in for now.
Pro 1.6 crowd: Understand that the argument is not that anybody's
-1 for requiring JDK 6
We are starting even new projects with JDK 5 (customer requirement - mostly
large financial or retail
companies). Given the speed of the JDK 1.4 JDK 5 migration they will stick
with JDK 5 (and IE 6) for at
least the next 3-4 years.
I don't like it either but thats just
+ 1 to move on.
Just that it is the way it is does not mean it has to be the way it is.
Vitek
I don't like it either but thats just the way it is in the enterprise business
;-(
--- Original Nachricht ---
Absender: Johan Compagner
Datum: 15.12.2009 12:42
i cant believe that..java 6 is
is failing because
of 1.6 deps...)
Since the question about availability came up now :-)
We (Roland Förther, Carl-Eric Menzel, Olaf Siefart) just released our
new german-language Wicket book, called Wicket: Komponentenbasierte
Webanwendungen in Java, published by dpunkt Verlag.
I was told a few
- Compilation failure
-
/data/home/wicket/teamcity-5.0/buildAgent/work/wicket-trunk/wicket/src/main/java/org/apache/wicket/ng/request/Url.java:[147,46]
cannot find symbol
- symbol : method copyOf(java.lang.String[],int)
- location: class java.util.Arrays
-
I was going to propose a vote in that direction... as JDK 1.5 has been
shelved...
Martijn
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Johan Compagner jcompag...@gmail.com wrote:
- Compilation failure
-
I was going to propose a vote in that direction... as JDK 1.5 has been
shelved...
While it's true 1.5 has gone eol last october, I don't think there's
too much stuff in 1.6
Wicket would actually benefit from. Raising the minimum requirements without
much benefit *could* scare off a lot of
Well, there's the benefit of using the compiler API for for example
the typesafe model. I can imagine we'll be able to implement other
things as well using this API (must call super annotation?)
Martijn
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Jonas barney...@gmail.com wrote:
I was going to propose a
I really don't think our core should depend on 1.6. Those few methods
can easyly be put to util classes. Typesafe models can be moved to
separate sub project. I know it makes the build more complicated
again, but 1.6 isn't that common, especially not in production.
-Matej
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at
I think that Java 6 adoption was much faster than 1.5 adoption.
Compatibility is pretty good, but you get an immediate 30% performance
gain.
Martijn
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Carl-Eric Menzel
cm.wic...@users.bitforce.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100
Martijn Dashorst
i cant believe that..java 6 is already out for years.. they are already at
update 17..
java 5 was sep 2004!
java 6 dec 2006
thats already 3 years ago..
I cant beleive that there are many still on java 5 they really should
upgrade because java 6 didnt maybe bring much api wise
but performance
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100
Martijn Dashorst martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote:
I was going to propose a vote in that direction... as JDK 1.5 has been
shelved...
It'll be years until Java 1.6 is as common as 1.5 is now. There are many
organizations who have only just completed the move
At our company we've been deploying to 1.6 for over 2 years now. I
know... since I'm on a (32bit) Mac and all my co-workers were able to
compile against 1.6 leaving me behind... Now that even developers on
Macs have Java 6, I seriously think that 1.5 is a dead platform.
Martijn
On Tue, Dec 15,
They do, on snow leopard :)
Anyway, I don't feel too strongly about it, certainly won't block 1.6
if others think it's a good idea.
-Matej
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Martijn Dashorst
martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote:
At our company we've been deploying to 1.6 for over 2 years now. I
mac's should be totally ignored in this area (and all other area's if you
ask me)
apple and java is the biggest pile of crap i ever worked with
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:45, Matej Knopp matej.kn...@gmail.com wrote:
They do, on snow leopard :)
Anyway, I don't feel too strongly about it,
Only thing I have aginst upgrading are the poor people who are stuck
using some commercial piece of software which runs on older java's...
However I guess those affected just will have to the wicket version
which supports that..
2009/12/15 Johan Compagner jcompag...@gmail.com:
mac's should be
Huh? As has been said, Snow Leopard (OS X 10.6) has Java 1.6 by default.
Leopard (OS X 10.5) even has it installed, just not linked by default.
+1 to moving to Java 1.6. Java 1.5 is past EOL.
cheers,
Steve
On 15/12/2009, at 10:47 PM, Johan Compagner wrote:
mac's should be totally ignored
so recently they moved to 5?
at a time that 6 is already almost 3 years there?
how stupid is that?
Why if you move you move to something that is already a dinosaur ?
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 13:03, Carl-Eric Menzel
cm.wic...@users.bitforce.com wrote:
I only know about our customers, who are
+1 to move to 1.6;
IMHO wicket 1.5 should be state of art in all terms and in case you
stuck to JDK 1.5 you still can use wicekt 1.4;
IMHO it makes no sense to aim at a plattform thats already EOL like 1.5
is; (and 1.7 will be out by the time wicket 1.5 is release IMHO)
my 2cents,
1.5 will be a major one, not minor - so where's the point?
Best,
Korbinian
Carl-Eric Menzel schrieb:
Because, from their (admittedly conservative) point of view, you
don't move essential systems to a platform before you really know it.
Or before your tool vendor finally manages to update
it will be not an easy task to obtain an
maintain Java 5 in 2011/2012!
Stefan
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: James Carman [mailto:jcar...@carmanconsulting.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. Dezember 2009 13:26
An: dev@wicket.apache.org
Betreff: Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
-1
Am Dienstag, den 15.12.2009, 13:39 +0100 schrieb Carl-Eric Menzel:
Carl-Eric Menzel
Das neue deutschsprachige Wicketbuch:
Wicket: Komponentenbasierte Webanwendungen in Java
http://www.wicketbuch.de/
Hi,
.. bei Amazon ist es immer noch nicht lieferbar. Bei dpunkt gibt es
keine Entsprechende
+1 for moving to Java6: if you have to use Java5, you can use wicket
1.4.x. .. (maybe someone will give paid support for wicket 1.4.x :) )
Michael
As far as I remember (and please correct me if I'm wrong), support
and updates for Wicket 1.3 were ended rather quickly after the release
of 1.4. That's okay, since the team has limited resources. But it
becomes a pretty serious problem if that means you'll cut off everybody
who can't yet move up
but they are throwing money away
now they have to do that same long process twice!
why start at all with moving to 1.5 if there is already an 1.6 ?
It shouldnt be to much a of a difference for them time and money wise if you
are now on 1.4
and you want to move up.. Then you can just say ok we
My point is not the version numbering of Wicket, nor the upgrading
policy of our customers. You can spend endless hours debating whether
it makes sense or not to stick with 1.5.
The point is that they *will stick to 1.5* no matter what we discuss
here, for at least 2-3 more years.
Will there be
Since the question about availability came up now :-)
We (Roland Förther, Carl-Eric Menzel, Olaf Siefart) just released our
new german-language Wicket book, called Wicket: Komponentenbasierte
Webanwendungen in Java, published by dpunkt Verlag.
I was told a few minutes ago that it was shipped to
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Carl-Eric Menzel cmen...@wicketbuch.de wrote:
And additionally, I think there was an extremely good case for Wicket
going to Java 1.5: Generic Models. What is the case to require Java 1.6
for Wicket core? Is it really problematic to keep that to a separate
I have no clue on how many are on java 6 or java 5 or even java 4. It
would be very nice to see some metrics, so it will be clear on how
many potential wicketeers are being cut off if wicket goes java 1.6.
On the other hand it could be a benefit if wicket upgraded to 1.6,
some are probably just
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:37:41 +0100
Martijn Dashorst martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't have a Java 5 JDK anymore on my system. It was removed by
Apple. Java 5 has been marked EOL: which essentially means dead.
deceased. terminated. passed on. ceased to be. expired and gone to
meet 'is
42 matches
Mail list logo
