My point is not the version numbering of Wicket, nor the upgrading policy of our customers. You can spend endless hours debating whether it makes sense or not to stick with 1.5.
The point is that they *will stick to 1.5* no matter what we discuss here, for at least 2-3 more years. Will there be support and updates for Wicket 1.4 after 1.5 is out? If not, we're facing a potentially serious problem with these customers. And additionally, I think there was an extremely good case for Wicket going to Java 1.5: Generic Models. What is the case to require Java 1.6 for Wicket core? Is it really problematic to keep that to a separate feature jar? Carl-Eric -- Carl-Eric Menzel Das neue deutschsprachige Wicketbuch: Wicket: Komponentenbasierte Webanwendungen in Java http://www.wicketbuch.de/ On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:05:05 +0100 Johan Compagner <jcompag...@gmail.com> wrote: > but they are throwing money away > now they have to do that same long process twice! > why start at all with moving to 1.5 if there is already an 1.6 ? > > It shouldnt be to much a of a difference for them time and money wise > if you are now on 1.4 > and you want to move up.. Then you can just say ok we take a release > of 1.6.. instead of one of 1.5 > picking IF you move anyway an 1.5 release when a 1.6 release is > already long time on the market is just blowing away money > > we are not talking about a next minor release (that would be 1.4.x) > but a major release (thats 1.5) > wicket numbering is just that.. We could also call 1.5, 3.0 if you > want (skip 2.0 because that could be confusing for the old timers) > > johan > > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 13:37, Carl-Eric Menzel > <cmen...@wicketbuch.de>wrote: > > > 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 <jcompag...@gmail.com> 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 < > > > cm.wic...@users.bitforce.com> 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 <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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
