Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
Let's call it wicket 1.5, use java 1.6 and make it happen.. Then, after we finished this, we can try to backport wicket 1.5 to java 1.5 ... if anybody want's it. mm:)
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
Hi, > that would be weird. I think the current situation with a deprecated release wicket 2.0 is also weird. Perhaps the wicket developers should jump over the 2.0 border and create a 3.0/2.5 (whatever > 2.0 :)) release instead of a 1.5 ? Best Regards, Ilja Pavkovic > > 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 > > 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 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 > -- binaere bauten gmbh · tempelhofer ufer 1a · 10961 berlin +49 · 171 · 9342 465 Handelsregister: HRB 115854 - Amtsgericht Charlottenburg Geschäftsführer: Dipl.-Inform. Ilja Pavkovic, Dipl.-Inform. Jost Becker
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
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 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 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 > > >
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
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 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 >
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
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
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
3/4 of the industry? 75% ? you must be joking... do remember that 1.5 will not be released for quite some time so even in 2010 you have a 1.4 version for i think the whole year. So wicket 1.4 will only really be not so supported anymore in 2011 that means that java 5 will be more then 6 years old and java 6 will be on the market for more then 4 years.. even hardware is replaced before that .. 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 johan On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 15:47, Olivier Croisier wrote: > Same here : > -1 to 1.6 dependencies in Wicket core. > +1 to additional 1.6-dependent features in separate jars. > > "Snow Leopard didn't install JDK 5 on my laptop" is not a valid excuse to > let down about 3/4 of the industry users, and neither is "it's free so they > cannot complain". > > Now, if some JDK6-only features are needed (Service Provider Interface, > webservices, etc.), a separate branch will be fine. Spring did it for years > with the Java 5 features. > > > On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 2:04 PM, elygre wrote: > > > > > -1 to 1.6 dependencies in Wicket core. > > +1 to additional 1.6-dependent features in separate jars. > > > > Eirik > > -- > > View this message in context: > > > http://old.nabble.com/wicket-1.5-build-is-failing-because-of-1.6-deps...-tp26792764p26913700.html > > Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > >
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
Same here : -1 to 1.6 dependencies in Wicket core. +1 to additional 1.6-dependent features in separate jars. "Snow Leopard didn't install JDK 5 on my laptop" is not a valid excuse to let down about 3/4 of the industry users, and neither is "it's free so they cannot complain". Now, if some JDK6-only features are needed (Service Provider Interface, webservices, etc.), a separate branch will be fine. Spring did it for years with the Java 5 features. On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 2:04 PM, elygre wrote: > > -1 to 1.6 dependencies in Wicket core. > +1 to additional 1.6-dependent features in separate jars. > > Eirik > -- > View this message in context: > http://old.nabble.com/wicket-1.5-build-is-failing-because-of-1.6-deps...-tp26792764p26913700.html > Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
-1 to 1.6 dependencies in Wicket core. +1 to additional 1.6-dependent features in separate jars. Eirik -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/wicket-1.5-build-is-failing-because-of-1.6-deps...-tp26792764p26913700.html Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
True, but my point was that for someone on the user end (the one running the webapp, not the developers), the speed alone should be a very compelling reason to switch to 1.6.
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
but isn't that increase of speed only relevant during runtime? imho it doesn't matter if you compile with 1.5 or 1.6 as long as you run it with 1.6 Regards Kai --- Original Nachricht --- Absender: Jeroen Steenbeeke Datum: 22.12.2009 12:47 > And let's not forget that nobody is suggesting moving current Wicket > versions to Java 1.6. For those poor souls who are stuck developing > for Java 1.5 there is still Wicket 1.4, or even 1.3 for that matter. > > The increase in speed alone is reason enough to switch to 1.6 in my opinion. >
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
And let's not forget that nobody is suggesting moving current Wicket versions to Java 1.6. For those poor souls who are stuck developing for Java 1.5 there is still Wicket 1.4, or even 1.3 for that matter. The increase in speed alone is reason enough to switch to 1.6 in my opinion.
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
Exactly! Also those organizations, which want to stay with very old and normally unsupported software versions usually budget for extra support. Java 1.5 is not supported normally any more by Sun, so they will be bying Sun "retirement" support anyway or running all their business systems on unsupported software. Similarly old version wicket support can be provided as extra service. I am sure there will be organizations willing to sell it, if there will be enough demand for it. So, I am for letting the developers make the choice ... On 12/22/2009 11:19 AM, Erik van Oosten wrote: I am afraid you miss the most important argument: whether the core developer *want* to develop with Java 5. Its mostly their free time and love they put in Wicket, we should never forget that. (Of course they probably want to have users, etc. But in the end it is their decision.) Regards, Erik. Neil Curzon wrote: -1 to JDK 1.6 The possibility of excluding even 1% of potential users for the negligible benefit of using 1.6-specific features would be a bad decision. 1.5 is simply the right jdk to be developing frameworks in for now. Pro 1.6 crowd: Understand that the argument is not that anybody's organization *should* stay with JDK 1.5, but that some organizations *will* stay at 1.5 regardless of whether you think they should be up to date. If the jump from 1.5 to 1.6 was as big as the jump from 1.4 to 1.5, I would be firmly in the pro-1.6 camp, but the benefits just aren't worth the costs.
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
Neil, I am afraid you miss the most important argument: whether the core developer *want* to develop with Java 5. Its mostly their free time and love they put in Wicket, we should never forget that. (Of course they probably want to have users, etc. But in the end it is their decision.) Regards, Erik. Neil Curzon wrote: -1 to JDK 1.6 The possibility of excluding even 1% of potential users for the negligible benefit of using 1.6-specific features would be a bad decision. 1.5 is simply the right jdk to be developing frameworks in for now. Pro 1.6 crowd: Understand that the argument is not that anybody's organization *should* stay with JDK 1.5, but that some organizations *will* stay at 1.5 regardless of whether you think they should be up to date. If the jump from 1.5 to 1.6 was as big as the jump from 1.4 to 1.5, I would be firmly in the pro-1.6 camp, but the benefits just aren't worth the costs. -- Erik van Oosten http://day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
RE: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
It's just the question: Will 1.5 sttill be available for the public in 2011 or 2012? Or 2013 when Wicket 1.5 is accepted by dinosours that want to stay with 1.3. The same argument as for java 1.5 is: stay with Wicket 1.4. oder even 1.3 I'ts quite stable. AND: It's old, it's outdated then. You can safely use it. No risk to be up to date. Stefan -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Neil Curzon [mailto:neil.cur...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. Dezember 2009 04:33 An: dev@wicket.apache.org Betreff: Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps... -1 to JDK 1.6 The possibility of excluding even 1% of potential users for the negligible benefit of using 1.6-specific features would be a bad decision. 1.5 is simply the right jdk to be developing frameworks in for now. Pro 1.6 crowd: Understand that the argument is not that anybody's organization *should* stay with JDK 1.5, but that some organizations *will* stay at 1.5 regardless of whether you think they should be up to date. If the jump from 1.5 to 1.6 was as big as the jump from 1.4 to 1.5, I would be firmly in the pro-1.6 camp, but the benefits just aren't worth the costs. On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Vit Rozkovec wrote: > + 1 to move on. > > Just that it is the way it is does not mean it has to be the way it is. > > Vitek > > > >> I don't like it either but thats just the way it is in the enterprise >> business ;-( >> >> --- Original Nachricht --- >> Absender: Johan Compagner >> Datum: 15.12.2009 12:42 >> >> >>> i cant believe that..java 6 is already out for years.. they are already >>> at >>> update 17.. >>> java 5 was sep 2004! >>> java 6 dec 2006 >>> >>> thats already 3 years ago.. >>> >>> I cant beleive that there are many still on java 5 they really should >>> upgrade because java 6 didnt maybe bring much api wise >>> but performance wise it was quite a good jump. >>> >>> Besides that when wicket 1.5 will be released we will be i guess at least >>> half next year >>> then java 7 is almost there. (i think... java 7 is just a bit question >>> mark) >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:36, Carl-Eric Menzel < >>> cm.wic...@users.bitforce.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 >>>> Martijn Dashorst 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > >
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
-1 to JDK 1.6 The possibility of excluding even 1% of potential users for the negligible benefit of using 1.6-specific features would be a bad decision. 1.5 is simply the right jdk to be developing frameworks in for now. Pro 1.6 crowd: Understand that the argument is not that anybody's organization *should* stay with JDK 1.5, but that some organizations *will* stay at 1.5 regardless of whether you think they should be up to date. If the jump from 1.5 to 1.6 was as big as the jump from 1.4 to 1.5, I would be firmly in the pro-1.6 camp, but the benefits just aren't worth the costs. On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Vit Rozkovec wrote: > + 1 to move on. > > Just that it is the way it is does not mean it has to be the way it is. > > Vitek > > > >> I don't like it either but thats just the way it is in the enterprise >> business ;-( >> >> --- Original Nachricht --- >> Absender: Johan Compagner >> Datum: 15.12.2009 12:42 >> >> >>> i cant believe that..java 6 is already out for years.. they are already >>> at >>> update 17.. >>> java 5 was sep 2004! >>> java 6 dec 2006 >>> >>> thats already 3 years ago.. >>> >>> I cant beleive that there are many still on java 5 they really should >>> upgrade because java 6 didnt maybe bring much api wise >>> but performance wise it was quite a good jump. >>> >>> Besides that when wicket 1.5 will be released we will be i guess at least >>> half next year >>> then java 7 is almost there. (i think... java 7 is just a bit question >>> mark) >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:36, Carl-Eric Menzel < >>> cm.wic...@users.bitforce.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 Martijn Dashorst 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 >>> >> >> >> > >
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
+ 1 to move on. Just that it is the way it is does not mean it has to be the way it is. Vitek I don't like it either but thats just the way it is in the enterprise business ;-( --- Original Nachricht --- Absender: Johan Compagner Datum: 15.12.2009 12:42 i cant believe that..java 6 is already out for years.. they are already at update 17.. java 5 was sep 2004! java 6 dec 2006 thats already 3 years ago.. I cant beleive that there are many still on java 5 they really should upgrade because java 6 didnt maybe bring much api wise but performance wise it was quite a good jump. Besides that when wicket 1.5 will be released we will be i guess at least half next year then java 7 is almost there. (i think... java 7 is just a bit question mark) On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:36, Carl-Eric Menzel < cm.wic...@users.bitforce.com> wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 Martijn Dashorst 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
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
-1 for requiring JDK 6 We are starting even new projects with JDK 5 (customer requirement - mostly large financial or retail companies). Given the speed of the JDK 1.4 > JDK 5 migration they will stick with JDK 5 (and IE 6) for at least the next 3-4 years. I don't like it either but thats just the way it is in the enterprise business ;-( --- Original Nachricht --- Absender: Johan Compagner Datum: 15.12.2009 12:42 > i cant believe that..java 6 is already out for years.. they are already at > update 17.. > java 5 was sep 2004! > java 6 dec 2006 > > thats already 3 years ago.. > > I cant beleive that there are many still on java 5 they really should > upgrade because java 6 didnt maybe bring much api wise > but performance wise it was quite a good jump. > > Besides that when wicket 1.5 will be released we will be i guess at least > half next year > then java 7 is almost there. (i think... java 7 is just a bit question mark) > > > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:36, Carl-Eric Menzel < > cm.wic...@users.bitforce.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 >> Martijn Dashorst 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 >> >
RE: New german Wicket book (was: Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...)
Amazon just informed me that it is available and will be shipped today. Stefan -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Carl-Eric Menzel [mailto:cmen...@wicketbuch.de] Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. Dezember 2009 14:35 An: dev@wicket.apache.org Betreff: New german Wicket book (was: Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...) Since the question about availability came up now :-) We (Roland Förther, Carl-Eric Menzel, Olaf Siefart) just released our new german-language Wicket book, called "Wicket: Komponentenbasierte Webanwendungen in Java", published by dpunkt Verlag. I was told a few minutes ago that it was shipped to retailers and distributors like Amazon.de yesterday. It should probably be available in the stores by the end of this week or at the latest early next week. Carl-Eric -- Carl-Eric Menzel Das neue deutschsprachige Wicketbuch: Wicket: Komponentenbasierte Webanwendungen in Java http://www.wicketbuch.de/ On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:52:32 +0100 Michael Mosmann wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 15.12.2009, 13:39 +0100 schrieb Carl-Eric Menzel: > > Carl-Eric Menzel > > Das neue deutschsprachige Wicketbuch: > > Wicket: Komponentenbasierte Webanwendungen in Java > > http://www.wicketbuch.de/ > > Hi, > > .. bei Amazon ist es immer noch nicht lieferbar. Bei dpunkt gibt es > keine Entsprechende Info.. da ich lieber bei Amazon bestellen würde > hier meine Frage: Ist es über dpunkt lieferbar? Wann ist es über > Amazon lieferbar? > > Danke:) > > Michael Mosmann > >
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:37:41 +0100 Martijn Dashorst wrote: > I don't have a Java 5 JDK anymore on my system. It was removed by > Apple. Java 5 has been marked EOL: which essentially means dead. > deceased. terminated. passed on. ceased to be. expired and gone to > meet 'is maker. a stiff. bereft of life. rests in peace. IT'S AN > EX-JDK! I know that, and I completely agree. I would much rather work on 1.6 than anything older, but currently I can't do that. All I'm saying is that there is a potentially large group of users that won't be able to follow you/us into 1.6-land any time soon. > We don't get paid by any corporation to provide support to wicket. If > your customers want to pay my salary for the next 5 years or so, I'm > happy to work on Wicket full time and maintain obsolete Java code for > them. But they won't. They just get stuff for free... As I said, it's perfectly reasonable for a relatively small team like the Wicket devs to focus on one version. I'm just pointing out things that should be known to make a conscious decision. Carl-Eric -- Carl-Eric Menzel Das neue deutschsprachige Wicketbuch: Wicket: Komponentenbasierte Webanwendungen in Java http://www.wicketbuch.de/
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
I have no clue on how many are on java 6 or java 5 or even java 4. It would be very nice to see some metrics, so it will be clear on how many potential wicketeers are being cut off if wicket goes java 1.6. On the other hand it could be a "benefit" if wicket upgraded to 1.6, some are probably just waiting for a good reason to upgrade. And those who are not wouldn't probably upgrade from wicket 1.4 to 1.5 either. regards Nino 2009/12/15 Martijn Dashorst : > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Carl-Eric Menzel > wrote: >> 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? > > I don't have a Java 5 JDK anymore on my system. It was removed by > Apple. Java 5 has been marked EOL: which essentially means dead. > deceased. terminated. passed on. ceased to be. expired and gone to > meet 'is maker. a stiff. bereft of life. rests in peace. IT'S AN > EX-JDK! > > We don't get paid by any corporation to provide support to wicket. If > your customers want to pay my salary for the next 5 years or so, I'm > happy to work on Wicket full time and maintain obsolete Java code for > them. But they won't. They just get stuff for free... > > Martijn >
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Carl-Eric Menzel wrote: > 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? I don't have a Java 5 JDK anymore on my system. It was removed by Apple. Java 5 has been marked EOL: which essentially means dead. deceased. terminated. passed on. ceased to be. expired and gone to meet 'is maker. a stiff. bereft of life. rests in peace. IT'S AN EX-JDK! We don't get paid by any corporation to provide support to wicket. If your customers want to pay my salary for the next 5 years or so, I'm happy to work on Wicket full time and maintain obsolete Java code for them. But they won't. They just get stuff for free... Martijn
New german Wicket book (was: Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...)
Since the question about availability came up now :-) We (Roland Förther, Carl-Eric Menzel, Olaf Siefart) just released our new german-language Wicket book, called "Wicket: Komponentenbasierte Webanwendungen in Java", published by dpunkt Verlag. I was told a few minutes ago that it was shipped to retailers and distributors like Amazon.de yesterday. It should probably be available in the stores by the end of this week or at the latest early next week. Carl-Eric -- Carl-Eric Menzel Das neue deutschsprachige Wicketbuch: Wicket: Komponentenbasierte Webanwendungen in Java http://www.wicketbuch.de/ On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:52:32 +0100 Michael Mosmann wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 15.12.2009, 13:39 +0100 schrieb Carl-Eric Menzel: > > Carl-Eric Menzel > > Das neue deutschsprachige Wicketbuch: > > Wicket: Komponentenbasierte Webanwendungen in Java > > http://www.wicketbuch.de/ > > Hi, > > .. bei Amazon ist es immer noch nicht lieferbar. Bei dpunkt gibt es > keine Entsprechende Info.. da ich lieber bei Amazon bestellen würde > hier meine Frage: Ist es über dpunkt lieferbar? Wann ist es über > Amazon lieferbar? > > Danke:) > > Michael Mosmann > >
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
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 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 > 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 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 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 > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 > > > > > > Martijn Dashorst 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > Of
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
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 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 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 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 > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 > > > > > Martijn Dashorst 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
As far as I remember (and please correct me if I'm wrong), support and updates for Wicket 1.3 were ended rather quickly after the release of 1.4. That's okay, since the team has limited resources. But it becomes a pretty serious problem if that means you'll cut off everybody who can't yet move up to Java 1.6. Java 1.5 adoption was pretty much everywhere when Wicket moved up to it. The same is not true for Java 1.6 at this time. Carl-Eric -- Carl-Eric Menzel Das neue deutschsprachige Wicketbuch: Wicket: Komponentenbasierte Webanwendungen in Java http://www.wicketbuch.de/ On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:40:50 +0100 Korbinian Bachl - privat wrote: > 1.5 will be a major one, not minor - so where's the point? > > Best, > > Korbinian > > Carl-Eric Menzel schrieb: > > 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 > >
RE: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
+1 for moving to Java6: if you have to use Java5, you can use wicket 1.4.x. .. (maybe someone will give paid support for wicket 1.4.x :) ) Michael
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
Am Dienstag, den 15.12.2009, 13:39 +0100 schrieb Carl-Eric Menzel: > Carl-Eric Menzel > Das neue deutschsprachige Wicketbuch: > Wicket: Komponentenbasierte Webanwendungen in Java > http://www.wicketbuch.de/ Hi, .. bei Amazon ist es immer noch nicht lieferbar. Bei dpunkt gibt es keine Entsprechende Info.. da ich lieber bei Amazon bestellen würde hier meine Frage: Ist es über dpunkt lieferbar? Wann ist es über Amazon lieferbar? Danke:) Michael Mosmann
RE: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
+1 for moving toJava 6. Java 5 already has reached it's "End of Service Life" http://java.sun.com/javase/downloads/index_jdk5.jsp and java 7 is coming in early 2010. I remember some people on the list discussed some java7 enhancement that might help making wicket development easier. Asuming that the wicket 1.5 development will last as long as the 1.4 development we can expect wicket 1.5 in late 2010/early 2011. Wicket 1.5 seems to come along with - API breaks - new/enhanced ajax And Wicket 1.5 will last long into 2011 (Wicket 1.5.1, 1.5.2 etc). So why not go to Java6? I think it will be not an easy task to obtain an maintain Java 5 in 2011/2012! Stefan -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: James Carman [mailto:jcar...@carmanconsulting.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. Dezember 2009 13:26 An: dev@wicket.apache.org Betreff: Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps... -1 to moving to 1.6. My client, a global consumer products company, is not on 1.6 yet and it took me YEARS to get 1.5. So, I don't see it happening anytime soon unfortunately. On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Steve Swinsburg wrote: > Huh? As has been said, Snow Leopard (OS X 10.6) has Java 1.6 by default. > Leopard (OS X 10.5) even has it installed, just not linked by default. > > +1 to moving to Java 1.6. Java 1.5 is past EOL. > > cheers, > Steve > > > > On 15/12/2009, at 10:47 PM, Johan Compagner wrote: > >> mac's should be totally ignored in this area (and all other area's if you >> ask me) >> apple and java is the biggest pile of crap i ever worked with >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:45, Matej Knopp wrote: >> >>> They do, on snow leopard :) >>> >>> Anyway, I don't feel too strongly about it, certainly won't block 1.6 >>> if others think it's a good idea. >>> >>> -Matej >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Martijn Dashorst >>> wrote: >>>> At our company we've been deploying to 1.6 for over 2 years now. I >>>> know... since I'm on a (32bit) Mac and all my co-workers were able to >>>> compile against 1.6 leaving me behind... Now that even developers on >>>> Macs have Java 6, I seriously think that 1.5 is a dead platform. >>>> >>>> Martijn >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Matej Knopp >>> wrote: >>>>> I really don't think our core should depend on 1.6. Those few methods >>>>> can easyly be put to util classes. Typesafe models can be moved to >>>>> separate sub project. I know it makes the build more complicated >>>>> again, but 1.6 isn't that common, especially not in production. >>>>> >>>>> -Matej >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Carl-Eric Menzel >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 >>>>>> Martijn Dashorst 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com >>>> Apache Wicket 1.4 increases type safety for web applications >>>> Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.4.4 >>>> >>> > >
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
1.5 will be a major one, not minor - so where's the point? Best, Korbinian Carl-Eric Menzel schrieb: 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
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
-1 to 1.6 dependencies in Wicket core. +1 to additional 1.6-dependent features in separate jars. -- Carl-Eric Menzel Das neue deutschsprachige Wicketbuch: Wicket: Komponentenbasierte Webanwendungen in Java http://www.wicketbuch.de/ On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:25:40 -0500 James Carman wrote: > -1 to moving to 1.6. My client, a global consumer products company, > is not on 1.6 yet and it took me YEARS to get 1.5. So, I don't see it > happening anytime soon unfortunately. > > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Steve Swinsburg > wrote: > > Huh? As has been said, Snow Leopard (OS X 10.6) has Java 1.6 by > > default. Leopard (OS X 10.5) even has it installed, just not linked > > by default. > > > > +1 to moving to Java 1.6. Java 1.5 is past EOL. > > > > cheers, > > Steve > > > > > > > > On 15/12/2009, at 10:47 PM, Johan Compagner wrote: > > > >> mac's should be totally ignored in this area (and all other area's > >> if you ask me) > >> apple and java is the biggest pile of crap i ever worked with > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:45, Matej Knopp > >> wrote: > >> > >>> They do, on snow leopard :) > >>> > >>> Anyway, I don't feel too strongly about it, certainly won't block > >>> 1.6 if others think it's a good idea. > >>> > >>> -Matej > >>> > >>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Martijn Dashorst > >>> wrote: > At our company we've been deploying to 1.6 for over 2 years now. > I know... since I'm on a (32bit) Mac and all my co-workers were > able to compile against 1.6 leaving me behind... Now that even > developers on Macs have Java 6, I seriously think that 1.5 is a > dead platform. > > Martijn > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Matej Knopp > > >>> wrote: > > I really don't think our core should depend on 1.6. Those few > > methods can easyly be put to util classes. Typesafe models can > > be moved to separate sub project. I know it makes the build > > more complicated again, but 1.6 isn't that common, especially > > not in production. > > > > -Matej > > > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Carl-Eric Menzel > > wrote: > >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 > >> Martijn Dashorst 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 > >> > > > > > > -- > Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: > http://wicketinaction.com Apache Wicket 1.4 increases type > safety for web applications Get it now: > http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.4.4 > > >>> > > > >
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
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 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 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 > > > wrote: > > > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 > > > > Martijn Dashorst 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
+1 to move to 1.6; IMHO wicket 1.5 should be state of art in all terms and in case you stuck to JDK 1.5 you still can use wicekt 1.4; IMHO it makes no sense to aim at a plattform thats already EOL like 1.5 is; (and 1.7 will be out by the time wicket 1.5 is release IMHO) my 2cents, Korbinian James Carman schrieb: -1 to moving to 1.6. My client, a global consumer products company, is not on 1.6 yet and it took me YEARS to get 1.5. So, I don't see it happening anytime soon unfortunately. On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Steve Swinsburg wrote: Huh? As has been said, Snow Leopard (OS X 10.6) has Java 1.6 by default. Leopard (OS X 10.5) even has it installed, just not linked by default. +1 to moving to Java 1.6. Java 1.5 is past EOL. cheers, Steve On 15/12/2009, at 10:47 PM, Johan Compagner wrote: mac's should be totally ignored in this area (and all other area's if you ask me) apple and java is the biggest pile of crap i ever worked with On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:45, Matej Knopp wrote: They do, on snow leopard :) Anyway, I don't feel too strongly about it, certainly won't block 1.6 if others think it's a good idea. -Matej On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote: At our company we've been deploying to 1.6 for over 2 years now. I know... since I'm on a (32bit) Mac and all my co-workers were able to compile against 1.6 leaving me behind... Now that even developers on Macs have Java 6, I seriously think that 1.5 is a dead platform. Martijn On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Matej Knopp wrote: I really don't think our core should depend on 1.6. Those few methods can easyly be put to util classes. Typesafe models can be moved to separate sub project. I know it makes the build more complicated again, but 1.6 isn't that common, especially not in production. -Matej On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Carl-Eric Menzel wrote: On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 Martijn Dashorst 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 -- Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com Apache Wicket 1.4 increases type safety for web applications Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.4.4
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
-1 to moving to 1.6. My client, a global consumer products company, is not on 1.6 yet and it took me YEARS to get 1.5. So, I don't see it happening anytime soon unfortunately. On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Steve Swinsburg wrote: > Huh? As has been said, Snow Leopard (OS X 10.6) has Java 1.6 by default. > Leopard (OS X 10.5) even has it installed, just not linked by default. > > +1 to moving to Java 1.6. Java 1.5 is past EOL. > > cheers, > Steve > > > > On 15/12/2009, at 10:47 PM, Johan Compagner wrote: > >> mac's should be totally ignored in this area (and all other area's if you >> ask me) >> apple and java is the biggest pile of crap i ever worked with >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:45, Matej Knopp wrote: >> >>> They do, on snow leopard :) >>> >>> Anyway, I don't feel too strongly about it, certainly won't block 1.6 >>> if others think it's a good idea. >>> >>> -Matej >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Martijn Dashorst >>> wrote: At our company we've been deploying to 1.6 for over 2 years now. I know... since I'm on a (32bit) Mac and all my co-workers were able to compile against 1.6 leaving me behind... Now that even developers on Macs have Java 6, I seriously think that 1.5 is a dead platform. Martijn On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Matej Knopp >>> wrote: > I really don't think our core should depend on 1.6. Those few methods > can easyly be put to util classes. Typesafe models can be moved to > separate sub project. I know it makes the build more complicated > again, but 1.6 isn't that common, especially not in production. > > -Matej > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Carl-Eric Menzel > wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 >> Martijn Dashorst 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 >> > -- Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com Apache Wicket 1.4 increases type safety for web applications Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.4.4 >>> > >
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
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 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 > > wrote: > > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 > > > Martijn Dashorst 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 > > > > > > > > > >
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
Huh? As has been said, Snow Leopard (OS X 10.6) has Java 1.6 by default. Leopard (OS X 10.5) even has it installed, just not linked by default. +1 to moving to Java 1.6. Java 1.5 is past EOL. cheers, Steve On 15/12/2009, at 10:47 PM, Johan Compagner wrote: > mac's should be totally ignored in this area (and all other area's if you > ask me) > apple and java is the biggest pile of crap i ever worked with > > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:45, Matej Knopp wrote: > >> They do, on snow leopard :) >> >> Anyway, I don't feel too strongly about it, certainly won't block 1.6 >> if others think it's a good idea. >> >> -Matej >> >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Martijn Dashorst >> wrote: >>> At our company we've been deploying to 1.6 for over 2 years now. I >>> know... since I'm on a (32bit) Mac and all my co-workers were able to >>> compile against 1.6 leaving me behind... Now that even developers on >>> Macs have Java 6, I seriously think that 1.5 is a dead platform. >>> >>> Martijn >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Matej Knopp >> wrote: I really don't think our core should depend on 1.6. Those few methods can easyly be put to util classes. Typesafe models can be moved to separate sub project. I know it makes the build more complicated again, but 1.6 isn't that common, especially not in production. -Matej On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Carl-Eric Menzel wrote: > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 > Martijn Dashorst 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 > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com >>> Apache Wicket 1.4 increases type safety for web applications >>> Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.4.4 >>> >> smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
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 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 > wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 > > Martijn Dashorst 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 > > > > >
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
Nah. It's ok as long as you stay away from swing. -Matej On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Johan Compagner wrote: > mac's should be totally ignored in this area (and all other area's if you > ask me) > apple and java is the biggest pile of crap i ever worked with > > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:45, Matej Knopp wrote: > >> They do, on snow leopard :) >> >> Anyway, I don't feel too strongly about it, certainly won't block 1.6 >> if others think it's a good idea. >> >> -Matej >> >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Martijn Dashorst >> wrote: >> > At our company we've been deploying to 1.6 for over 2 years now. I >> > know... since I'm on a (32bit) Mac and all my co-workers were able to >> > compile against 1.6 leaving me behind... Now that even developers on >> > Macs have Java 6, I seriously think that 1.5 is a dead platform. >> > >> > Martijn >> > >> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Matej Knopp >> wrote: >> >> I really don't think our core should depend on 1.6. Those few methods >> >> can easyly be put to util classes. Typesafe models can be moved to >> >> separate sub project. I know it makes the build more complicated >> >> again, but 1.6 isn't that common, especially not in production. >> >> >> >> -Matej >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Carl-Eric Menzel >> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 >> >>> Martijn Dashorst 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 >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com >> > Apache Wicket 1.4 increases type safety for web applications >> > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.4.4 >> > >> >
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
Only thing I have aginst upgrading are the poor people who are stuck using some commercial piece of software which runs on older java's... However I guess those affected just will have to the wicket version which supports that.. 2009/12/15 Johan Compagner : > mac's should be totally ignored in this area (and all other area's if you > ask me) > apple and java is the biggest pile of crap i ever worked with > > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:45, Matej Knopp wrote: > >> They do, on snow leopard :) >> >> Anyway, I don't feel too strongly about it, certainly won't block 1.6 >> if others think it's a good idea. >> >> -Matej >> >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Martijn Dashorst >> wrote: >> > At our company we've been deploying to 1.6 for over 2 years now. I >> > know... since I'm on a (32bit) Mac and all my co-workers were able to >> > compile against 1.6 leaving me behind... Now that even developers on >> > Macs have Java 6, I seriously think that 1.5 is a dead platform. >> > >> > Martijn >> > >> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Matej Knopp >> wrote: >> >> I really don't think our core should depend on 1.6. Those few methods >> >> can easyly be put to util classes. Typesafe models can be moved to >> >> separate sub project. I know it makes the build more complicated >> >> again, but 1.6 isn't that common, especially not in production. >> >> >> >> -Matej >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Carl-Eric Menzel >> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 >> >>> Martijn Dashorst 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 >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com >> > Apache Wicket 1.4 increases type safety for web applications >> > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.4.4 >> > >> >
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
mac's should be totally ignored in this area (and all other area's if you ask me) apple and java is the biggest pile of crap i ever worked with On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:45, Matej Knopp wrote: > They do, on snow leopard :) > > Anyway, I don't feel too strongly about it, certainly won't block 1.6 > if others think it's a good idea. > > -Matej > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Martijn Dashorst > wrote: > > At our company we've been deploying to 1.6 for over 2 years now. I > > know... since I'm on a (32bit) Mac and all my co-workers were able to > > compile against 1.6 leaving me behind... Now that even developers on > > Macs have Java 6, I seriously think that 1.5 is a dead platform. > > > > Martijn > > > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Matej Knopp > wrote: > >> I really don't think our core should depend on 1.6. Those few methods > >> can easyly be put to util classes. Typesafe models can be moved to > >> separate sub project. I know it makes the build more complicated > >> again, but 1.6 isn't that common, especially not in production. > >> > >> -Matej > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Carl-Eric Menzel > >> wrote: > >>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 > >>> Martijn Dashorst 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 > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com > > Apache Wicket 1.4 increases type safety for web applications > > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.4.4 > > >
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
They do, on snow leopard :) Anyway, I don't feel too strongly about it, certainly won't block 1.6 if others think it's a good idea. -Matej On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote: > At our company we've been deploying to 1.6 for over 2 years now. I > know... since I'm on a (32bit) Mac and all my co-workers were able to > compile against 1.6 leaving me behind... Now that even developers on > Macs have Java 6, I seriously think that 1.5 is a dead platform. > > Martijn > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Matej Knopp wrote: >> I really don't think our core should depend on 1.6. Those few methods >> can easyly be put to util classes. Typesafe models can be moved to >> separate sub project. I know it makes the build more complicated >> again, but 1.6 isn't that common, especially not in production. >> >> -Matej >> >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Carl-Eric Menzel >> wrote: >>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 >>> Martijn Dashorst 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 >>> >> > > > > -- > Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com > Apache Wicket 1.4 increases type safety for web applications > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.4.4 >
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
At our company we've been deploying to 1.6 for over 2 years now. I know... since I'm on a (32bit) Mac and all my co-workers were able to compile against 1.6 leaving me behind... Now that even developers on Macs have Java 6, I seriously think that 1.5 is a dead platform. Martijn On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Matej Knopp wrote: > I really don't think our core should depend on 1.6. Those few methods > can easyly be put to util classes. Typesafe models can be moved to > separate sub project. I know it makes the build more complicated > again, but 1.6 isn't that common, especially not in production. > > -Matej > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Carl-Eric Menzel > wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 >> Martijn Dashorst 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 >> > -- Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com Apache Wicket 1.4 increases type safety for web applications Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.4.4
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 Martijn Dashorst 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
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
i cant believe that..java 6 is already out for years.. they are already at update 17.. java 5 was sep 2004! java 6 dec 2006 thats already 3 years ago.. I cant beleive that there are many still on java 5 they really should upgrade because java 6 didnt maybe bring much api wise but performance wise it was quite a good jump. Besides that when wicket 1.5 will be released we will be i guess at least half next year then java 7 is almost there. (i think... java 7 is just a bit question mark) On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:36, Carl-Eric Menzel < cm.wic...@users.bitforce.com> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 > Martijn Dashorst 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 >
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
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 wrote: > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 > Martijn Dashorst 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 > -- Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com Apache Wicket 1.4 increases type safety for web applications Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.4.4
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
I really don't think our core should depend on 1.6. Those few methods can easyly be put to util classes. Typesafe models can be moved to separate sub project. I know it makes the build more complicated again, but 1.6 isn't that common, especially not in production. -Matej On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Carl-Eric Menzel wrote: > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 > Martijn Dashorst 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 >
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
Well, there's the benefit of using the compiler API for for example the typesafe model. I can imagine we'll be able to implement other things as well using this API (must call super annotation?) Martijn On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Jonas wrote: >> I was going to propose a vote in that direction... as JDK 1.5 has been >> shelved... > > While it's true 1.5 has gone eol last october, I don't think there's > too much stuff in 1.6 > Wicket would actually benefit from. Raising the minimum requirements without > much benefit *could* scare off a lot of potential users. > > ...just to add my two cents on that topic :-) > -- Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com Apache Wicket 1.4 increases type safety for web applications Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.4.4
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
> I was going to propose a vote in that direction... as JDK 1.5 has been > shelved... While it's true 1.5 has gone eol last october, I don't think there's too much stuff in 1.6 Wicket would actually benefit from. Raising the minimum requirements without much benefit *could* scare off a lot of potential users. ...just to add my two cents on that topic :-)
Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...
I was going to propose a vote in that direction... as JDK 1.5 has been shelved... Martijn On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Johan Compagner wrote: > - Compilation failure > - > /data/home/wicket/teamcity-5.0/buildAgent/work/wicket-trunk/wicket/src/main/java/org/apache/wicket/ng/request/Url.java:[147,46] > cannot find symbol > > - symbol : method copyOf(java.lang.String[],int) > - location: class java.util.Arrays > - > /data/home/wicket/teamcity-5.0/buildAgent/work/wicket-trunk/wicket/src/main/java/org/apache/wicket/ng/request/Url.java:[147,46] > cannot find symbol > > - symbol : method copyOf(java.lang.String[],int) > - location: class java.util.Arrays > > > are we moving to 1.6 form 1.5? > -- Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com Apache Wicket 1.4 increases type safety for web applications Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.4.4
