that would be weird. if wicket 1.3 to wicket 1.4 would be just a .1 increase because of java 4 to 5 but because of java 6 we suddenly have to call it wicket 2.0?
purely looking at the java version used wicket 1.3 to 1.4 is a way bigger leap then wicket 1.4 to 1.5 (looking at the changes wicket did for using the new features of java 5) Ofcourse maybe there are loads of other changes that would recommend a bigger version jump But the upgrade of a java version from 5 to 6 isnt one of them On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:47, Olivier Croisier <olivier.crois...@gmail.com>wrote: > 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 > > >
