Because, from their (admittedly conservative) point of view, you don't move essential systems to a platform before you really know it. Or before your tool vendor finally manages to update their product to be compatible with 1.5. These are organizations that have to be extremely careful. Why do you think Sun is still offering paid support for 1.5?
It doesn't really matter why they are sticking with 1.5, however. What really matters is this: There are organizations for whom stability in the core is more important than having the new features. At the same time, however, they want to be able to update less essential things like a GUI framework for as long as possible. If you tell them now they won't be able to use Wicket after the next minor(!) release and won't get any support for the old version, they'll go ahead and use Struts. Okay, that last one is maybe a bit exaggerated, but you get what I mean. Carl-Eric -- Carl-Eric Menzel Das neue deutschsprachige Wicketbuch: Wicket: Komponentenbasierte Webanwendungen in Java http://www.wicketbuch.de/ On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:12:45 +0100 Johan Compagner <[email protected]> wrote: > so recently they moved to 5? > at a time that 6 is already almost 3 years there? > how stupid is that? > > Why if you move you move to something that is already a dinosaur ? > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 13:03, Carl-Eric Menzel < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 > > > > Martijn Dashorst <[email protected]> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
