Then I'd suggest renaming Wicket 1.6 to Wicket 2.0, for the psychological impact, and to state clearly that this is a break in Wicket development.
As for Java 1.5 vs 1.6, companies upgraded to 1.5 because it came with a huge lot of new features and improvements that their architects felt could help building better apps & frameworks. On the other hand, Java 1.6 is often considered as a mere patch over 1.5 with no real value added, so many companies didn't bother upgrading and are waiting for 1.7 and its new features (closures, etc.). If it were only for me, I'd upgrade to the latest Java version anyday - but this is market reality. On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Ryan McKinley <ryan...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> we can try to avoid it for some time if possible, but if some stuff as >> nicer >> for the core then i am against a separate jar and ugly build system >> > > +1 for 1.6 > > In my opinion, giving people more reasons to use a newer JVM is better (as > if speed were not enough) > > Seems a shame to futz with a strange build to support people who are unable > to upgrade in general. If someone is in an environment where they can't > upgrade JVM from 1.5 -> 1.6 (in late 2010), then seems odd they are allowed > to upgrade to a new wicket version. > > ryan >
