On 8/11/06, Jorg Heymans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006, at 20:34, Peter Hunsberger wrote:
> On 8/11/06, Jorg Heymans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I felt that my current involvement in cocoon is not big enough to
>> warrant a veto, hence the -0 here. WLS 8.1 was just an example
>> from my
>> past experience, but technically you're right ofcourse.
>
> Based on the "Voting Policies" thread I think it's legitimate for me
> to ask if you can give us a _compelling_ reason why you need to run
> Cocoon 2.2 on a platform that does not have Java 5 support and why
> running Cocoon 2.1 instead isn't sufficient? If you have a real use
> case that requires Cocoon 2.2 on some platform that does not support
> Java 5 then I think a veto would be appropriate. Otherwise, I think a
> -0 would be a good indication of concern.
>
Just as much as i can't give a more compelling reason than i already
have, there is no compelling reason to do the switch either. The core
of my concern, _bluntly put_, was to limit our possible target
audience for the sake of being able to write enhanced for loops.
We've already run into problems deploying Coccon with third party Java
5.0 libraries. At this point it appears that our config. has to run
under a Java 5 compatible JVM in any case, and this is with Cocoon
2.1. Better type safety may not be "compelling" but it's a pretty big
selling feature in my book.
The way any product or project moves forward is usually by small
incremental changes; these should never be blocked unless there is a
real reason. In other words, the reasons for blocking a project from
going forward must be compelling. The reasons to move forward need
simply to be that the project is better than before.
<snip/>
--
Peter Hunsberger
