I'd say people using wicket now who did not mind switching from other framework might not mind upgrading web server to java5 (even 7:-), or deploy it on a new web server instead of mixing them with the old app servers.
>the big question is if 1.4 and 1.3 where api wise very much the same >is there still a high demand for java4 wicket yes or no at this time? > >If there still are quite a lot of deployments on java4 then we have to >maintain it for a while. > >If not then all those 1.3 users could switch to 1.4 quite easy if we make >sure that there >are not many other api changes and different behaviors in the code. > >So the question is how many are still stuck on java4?? > >johan > > > >2008/3/15 Martin Benda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> OK, fine, then make the 1.3.3 version the last 1.3 release! Why not? Java >> 5 >> was released more than three years ago and is somebody is still stuck to >> Java >> 1.4 he will also surely don't mind to stick to Wicket 1.3.3... Well, >> that's >> just my opinion, but I think that Java 5 users should become preferred... >> >> Regrads, >> Bendis >> >> On Saturday 15 of March 2008 11:54:00 Johan Compagner wrote: >> > I am sorry but if you cant move to M1 for that then you just have to >> > be on 1.3, thats just it. You can do your own patches yes so the >> > things we patch on 1.3 you apply on 1.4-m1. >> > >> > Look if everybody just tells us release a generified 1.3 so 1.4 now >> > (within a few weeks) and you can drop 1.3 completely then. Then that >> > 1.4 is fine by me, so then 1.3.3 (release at +/- the same time as 1.4) >> > is then pretty much the last one (maybe only exceptional security bug >> > fixes only) >> > >> > Johan >> > >> > On 3/15/08, Jeremy Thomerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > It may be unlikely, but I foresee a potential problem with this. A >> lot >> > > of us are talking about moving our production apps to this release >> that >> > > includes generics. That means our bread and butter is dependent on >> it. >> > > What if we push out a 1.4-M1 that has generics (+ miscellaneous), then >> > > everyone starts working on other things, and in the meantime we >> discover >> > > a bug in M1 that effects us? We can't necessarily just drop in 1.4-M2 >> , >> > > because there are likely to be API breaks. Do we all have to manage >> > > adding patches to the release (1.4-M1-plus-custom-patches)? >> > > >> > > That's one of the reasons many companies won't allow a milestone / >> beta >> > > release to be depended on in production. Can we think of another >> > > solution? Perhaps 1.4 goes out quick, and to ease the concern of >> > > supporting 1.3 / 1.4/ 1.5 concurrently, 1.4 only has limited support - >> > > for urgent / critical patches? Or someone from among us that really >> want >> > > generics would be willing to do the merges / etc associated with >> > > supporting it? >> > > >> > > I'm just throwing ideas out there - feel free to shoot me down with a >> > > much better idea. >> > > >> > > Jeremy Thomerson >> > > >> > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Martijn Dashorst < >> > > >> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > > This is the plan. >> > > > >> > > > x-m1 is 1.3 + generics (+ any bugs that could be solved in the mean >> > > > time). >> > > > >> > > > x-m2 is what we are planning now. >> > > > >> > > > Martijn >> > > > >> > > > On 3/14/08, Stefan Lindner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > > > And if the wicket core developers do not want to have 1.3 + 1.4 + >> 2.0 >> > > > > in >> > > > >> > > > parallel: I believe that we old wicket 2.0 users could live with xM1 >> > > >> > > (=1.3+ Generics) >> > > >> > > > > That means: >> > > > > 1. Not need to support more than 2 branches/Versions >> > > > > 2. Very quick generics for wicket based upan a stable release >> > > > > 3. We old Wicket 2 users now can mitgrate to xM1, having new >> > > > > features >> > > > >> > > > and Generics >> > > > >> > > > > 4. We old Wicket 2 users have to suffer a few API changes until >> > > > >> > > > releasing x but I think we can live with this. >> > > > >> > > > > Stefan >> > > > > >> > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> > > > > Von: Martin Benda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > > > Gesendet: Freitag, 14. März 2008 22:49 >> > > > > >> > > > > An: dev@wicket.apache.org >> > > > > Betreff: Re: Planning Wicket Next Generation >> > > > > >> > > > > ...and the answer is: We would like to see java5-only major >> release >> > > > >> > > > *ASAP* If you are going to add many new features in the next major >> > > >> > > release, >> > > >> > > > those poor "early 2.0 adopters" (like me and my co-workers) will >> have >> > > > to wait another 6-12 months... >> > > > >> > > > > +1 for 1.4 = 1.3 + java5 :-) >> > > > > >> > > > > Bendis >> > > > > >> > > > > Dne Friday 14 of March 2008 22:32:35 Igor Vaynberg napsal(a): >> > > > > > the question, sounds like, is not whether or not java5 will >> make >> > > > > > it into the next major release - that has always been a given, >> the >> > > > > > question is whether or not the next "major" release should >> simply >> > > > > > be 1.3+java5 stuff ONLY which would allow it to be released >> very >> > > > > > quickly... >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -igor >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Martin Benda >> > > > > > >> > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > > > > > Dear Wicket devs, >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > we are in the same situation too :-) For more than a year we >> > > > > > > are stuck to the dead 2.0 branch and are still hopefully >> > > > > > > awaiting the new generified major release. Old 2.0 with a few >> > > > > > > patches works >> > > > >> > > > quite >> > > > >> > > > > > > fine but we won't probably survive waiting another year for >> the >> > > >> > > 1.4/2.0 >> > > >> > > > release... >> > > > >> > > > > > > So I'm totally +1 for adding only generics and other Java >> 1.5 >> > > > > > > features in the next major release... >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Regards, >> > > > > > > Bendis >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Dne Friday 14 of March 2008 22:14:56 Stefan Lindner >> napsal(a): >> > > > > > > > Dear Philip, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > we are in the same situation. Just starting a new project, >> we >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > discussed to write a generic wrapper for all the wicket >> classes >> > > > > > > > (Model, Component, etc.). We are waiting for a generic >> wicket >> > > > > > > wersion > now for a year. Having a genierfied wicket version >> > > > >> > > > (let's >> > > > >> > > > > > > call it > 1.4M1 or 2.0M1) wohlg make us sooo happ. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Migration to wicket 1.3 was impossible because of heavy >> > > > > > > > generic >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > usage > all around our code. It's hard to imagine how to use >> > > > > > > wicket's model > without generics. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I totally agree with your opinion: "Quit punishing us 2.0 >> > > > > > > > early >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > adopters already". >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > It is still a pleasuere to use OLD wicket 2.0 and it still >> > > > > > > > works >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > pretty stable. And I am sure it will be much more pleasure >> to >> > > > >> > > > work >> > > > >> > > > > > > > with a generified wicket 1.4/2.0 > > Stefan > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Philip A. Chapman >> > > > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gesendet: Freitag, 14. März 2008 >> > > > > > > 22:00 >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > An: dev@wicket.apache.org > Betreff: Re: Planning Wicket >> Next >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Generation >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ++++++++++1 >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I've been waiting on generics since 2.0 was killed. As an >> > > > > > > > early >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > adopter of 2.0, I've been struggling with a few projects >> that >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > where > written against 2.0. So far, I've fought off the >> urge >> > > > > > > to convert to > 1.3 simply because it doesn't make sense to >> > > > > > > rewrite for 1.3, then > again for 1.4. Also, these projects >> > > > > > > make *heavy* use of generics and > it would be a terrible >> pain >> > > > > > > to re-write them without. I'd rather go > straight to the >> > > > > > > generics version. Quit punishing us 2.0 early adopters > >> > > > > > > already. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Jeremy Thomerson wrote: >> > > > > > > > > I definitely don't have any votes in this, but I have >> > > > > > > > > several >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > production apps running with Wicket, and use 1.5 / >> generics >> > > > > > > > > in >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > all > > of them. Has there been any discussion of a faster >> > > > >> > > > release >> > > > >> > > > > > > that > > ONLY includes generics? Last I remember, someone >> had >> > > > > > > the generics > > patch(es) basically done, and just needed >> to >> > > > > > > apply >> > > > >> > > > them. >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > I would really like to see generics soon, but if they >> get >> > > > > > > > > put >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in > > with all the other features for 1.4, it would be 6-9 >> > > > > > > months (at > > least) before I could use them. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Jeremy Thomerson >> > > > > > > > > -- sent from a wireless device >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > > > > > > From: "Johan Compagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > dev@wicket.apache.org > > Sent: 3/14/08 4:23 PM > > >> Subject: >> > > > > > > Re: Planning Wicket Next Generation > > > > Its not that >> > > > > > > revolutionairy. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > For example if 1.4 was just 1.3+generics then if your >> > > > > > > > > project >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > like > > vocus thats already on 1.5 it would be a drop in >> > > > > > > replacement. So api > > and 'feature' wise not much has >> happend >> > > > > > > then, only easy of > > development (for most not all are >> fans >> > > > > > > ;)) >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On 3/14/08, Martijn Dashorst >> > > > > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> On 3/14/08, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> > > > > > > > >>> is the next release an evolution or revolution? :) i >> > > > > > > > >>> think >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > first > >>> we need to make a list of all major things we >> want >> > > > > > > to go into it, > >>> and then decide. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> I think it counts as revolutionary: abandoning Java 1.4is >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> revolutionary I think. >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > 2 - are we going to timebox the milestones, or >> plan >> > > > > > > > >>> > on >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >>> > features added? >> > > > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >>> personally i think we should come up with a list of >> all >> > > > > > > > >>> the >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> features we want, throw them into a backlog, and >> timebox >> > > > > > > > >>> it. >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > >> See the wishlist: >> > > > > > > > >> http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/wicket-14-wish-list.html >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > 3 - how many milestones do we plan? >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> id like 6. 1-4 dev, 5-6 stabalizaton. we were never >> able >> > > > > > > > >>> to >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > get > >>> away with just one beta release before, most bugs >> are >> > > > > > > found after > >>> we put out the first beta...so i dont >> expect >> > > > > > > a lot of bugs to be > >>> found until the last dev >> milestone >> > > > > > > goes >> > > > >> > > > out. >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Fine with me. >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > 4 - which features go into each milestone? >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > >>> what are the features? :) >> > > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > > >> :D >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/wicket-14-wish-list.html >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> Martijn >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> -- >> > > > > > > > >> Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorstApache >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Wicket > >> 1.3.1 is released Get it now: >> > > > > > > > >> http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.1 >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > Martin Benda >> > > > > > > Technology Leader >> > > > > > > __________________________________________ >> > > > > > > Cleverlance - The Clever Enterprise Solutions The Winner of >> > > > > > > the Technology FAST 50 for Czech Republic >> www.cleverlance.com >> > > > > > > <http://www.cleverlance.com/> >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > European Business Center >> > > > > > > Dukelských hrdinů 34 >> > > > > > > 170 00 Praha 7 >> > > > > > > Czech Republic >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Phone: +420 266 177 166 >> > > > > > > Cell.: +420 774 470 824 >> > > > > > > Fax: +420 266 177 155 >> > > > > >> > > > > -- >> > > > > Martin Benda >> > > > > Technology Leader >> > > > > __________________________________________ >> > > > > Cleverlance - The Clever Enterprise Solutions The Winner of the >> > > > >> > > > Technology FAST 50 for Czech Republic www.cleverlance.com < >> > > > http://www.cleverlance.com/> >> > > > >> > > > > European Business Center >> > > > > Dukelských hrdinů 34 >> > > > > 170 00 Praha 7 >> > > > > Czech Republic >> > > > > >> > > > > Phone: +420 266 177 166 >> > > > > Cell.: +420 774 470 824 >> > > > > Fax: +420 266 177 155 >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst >> > > > Apache Wicket 1.3.1 is released >> > > > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.1 >> >> >> >> -- >> Martin Benda >> Technology Leader >> __________________________________________ >> Cleverlance - The Clever Enterprise Solutions >> The Winner of the Technology FAST 50 for Czech Republic >> www.cleverlance.com <http://www.cleverlance.com/> >> >> European Business Center >> Dukelských hrdinů 34 >> 170 00 Praha 7 >> Czech Republic >> >> Phone: +420 266 177 166 >> Cell.: +420 774 470 824 >> Fax: +420 266 177 155 >>
