I only know about our customers, who are mostly medium to large financial corporations. Very conservative. There's not one among them who is running on 1.6 yet. As I said, some have only very recently managed to move up to 1.5. We are finally getting some of them to use Wicket. If you now add a hard dependency on Java 1.6, that will make things rather difficult in this space.
Do you really need it for anything in core? I know that running on 1.6 is nice performance-wise, but that is not a good reason to ditch runtime compatibility. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to use 1.6 as well. But I really think that it should stay out of the core for quite some time still. Carl-Eric On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:39:47 +0100 Martijn Dashorst <martijn.dasho...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think that Java 6 adoption was much faster than 1.5 adoption. > Compatibility is pretty good, but you get an immediate 30% performance > gain. > > Martijn > > 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 > > > > >
