On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 5:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 10:19 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Volker Weber schrieb:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Leonardo has just deleted the EnumConverter from the jsf1.1 branch of
>>>> commons.
>>>> This converter was the reason for me to use a snapshot version in our
>>>> production application.
>>>>
>>>> Is it really necessary  to have the commons jsf1.1 branch java 1.4
>>>> compatible?
>>>> I know jsf1.1 is, but commons is an extension, so why should we
>>>> restrict commons?
>>>>
>>>> We may provide a retroweaved (if this is possible with this Converter)
>>>> release for 1.4 users, as we do for tobago.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I think we really *should* have commons-1.1 compatible with java1.4.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I think that this is not necessary. Trinidad 1.0.x (which is the JSF
>> 1.1 version)
>> supports only Java5.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Setting up retroweaver, etc. is a pain in the butt. So if *you* (Volker)
>>> can
>>> provide a clean and simple patch to get this working, fine. But otherwise
>>> I'm happy with removing EnumConverter from commons1.1.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> just because of JSF 1.1 uses outdated Java version?
>>
>>
> I may have spoken too soon.
>
> For myfaces core 1.1.x I think we should definitely stay with "-source 1.4
> -target 1.4" options. There won't be a whole lot of people running it on
> java1.4, but we currently support it so should stay with it.
>
> I guess that commons-1.1.x *could* be run by different rules. It is new, so
> we won't break any existing users if java15 is set as the minimum.
>
> Pros for java15 as minimum in commons-1.1:
> * can have EnumConverter
> * internal code can be cleaner
> * ???
>
> Cons:
> * some users stuck on JSF1.1 + java14 might not be able to use the new lib.
> * ???
>
> Anyone else got pros/cons? I can't think of anything particularly
> convincing either way..
>

Pros:

* can have DateRestrictValidator

I'll go with java15 as minimum for commons.



> Regards,
> Simon
>
>

Reply via email to