Nah. It's ok as long as you stay away from swing. -Matej
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Johan Compagner <jcompag...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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, 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 >> > 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, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Matej Knopp <matej.kn...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> 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 12:36 PM, Carl-Eric Menzel >> >> <cm.wic...@users.bitforce.com> wrote: >> >>> 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 to 1.5. I think >> >>> going to a strict requirement for Java 1.6 would be a really bad idea, >> >>> especially since it does not offer as many significant new benefits as >> >>> 1.5 did. >> >>> >> >>> Offering 1.6-specific features in a separate jar would be a simple and >> >>> pretty good solution, I think. Stuff like the typesafe model would thus >> >>> be available for those who need it, without leaving anybody needlessly >> >>> stranded. >> >>> >> >>> Carl-Eric >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com >> > Apache Wicket 1.4 increases type safety for web applications >> > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.4.4 >> > >> >
