Reinhard Poetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> speculates: > > Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > > > Le 17 juin 04, à 10:16, Reinhard Poetz a écrit : > > > >> ...IIRC there was no vote. We only said that if there are > really good > >> reasons we think about droping 1.3 support. Not more... > > > > > > IMHO 1.3 support for the Cocoon core and for individual > blocks can be > > considered separately. > > > > Having blocks which require 1.4 disabled by default might be an > > option, or we could add an attribute in gump.xml indicating JVM > > version requirements for blocks, individually.
<snip>discussion about users lists</snip> > > At our latest poll about 20 users answered and there were 3 CON votes > (thanks Steven). I hope that Cocoon has more than 20 users > worldwide and > if the mentioned figures are representative this means that > about 10 to > 20 % of our users are stick to JDK1.3. I doubt that the figures are representative of the entire Cocoon base; the people with the most motivation to vote are going to be the ones who are currently dependant on 1.3, not the ones who are using 1.4. Thus, one would expect that the real numbers are considerably lower than 15%, (that would more likely be the max possible). > I think this is enough to have > *really* good reasons if we have to move to JDK1.4. I agree completly > with Gianugo's list of those really good points and that things for > special blocks may be different. > I agree if there's no compelling reason to switch then don't. However, I would personally think that making some optional blocks dependant on 1.4 would be ok if there was a 1.4 feature that people wanted to experiment with... I'm pretty sure that Ant could disable building certain blocks if 1.3 was being used?
