On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Alex Jacoby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just curious what experiences people had with serialization and
> generics, never having played there myself...
No particular issues; just works like it would work with non-generified code.
Eelco
-
what do those 2 have to do with each other?
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Alex Jacoby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just curious what experiences people had with serialization and
> generics, never having played there myself...
>
> On Mar 17, 2008, at 4:13 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>
> > Thi
Just curious what experiences people had with serialization and
generics, never having played there myself...
On Mar 17, 2008, at 4:13 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
This thread is the accompanying discussion thread for the ongoing vote
on the same subject. Please use this discussion thread for
i had read that thread, but i guess i did not realize they do not want
a milestone release on production.
personally i have no problem with that.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Maurice
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Martijn Dashorst
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you read the planning thread, y
If you read the planning thread, you see that a lot of folks want to
move to the generified Wicket version and don't want to wait 6-8
months to deploy on their production boxes.
Martijn
On 3/17/08, Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why does a quick release imply dropping 1.3?
> IMO if
Why does a quick release imply dropping 1.3?
IMO if we do a 1.4m1 release and then "slowly" add additional stuff to
1.4 we could continue to support 1.3.
Not that i need 1.3 but it just seems odd to throw away 1.3 so quickly
after we released it.
AFAIK we have the following branches:
1.2.x : critic
Hmm... bummer. :-)
How hard can it be to throw out all references to generics and insert
the casts where necessary? :-) But you're right... at least in eclipse
it complains if you put the source compliance level higher than the
class file compliance level...
Regards,
Sebastiaan
Johan Compag
dont think you can compile java 5 source (with generics) to 1.4
you have to use something like retroweaver then
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering to what extent it is possible to have generics added to
> 1.3 but have it compil
Response inline
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Why should we keep supporting 1.3 and JDK 1.4?
>
Would 1.3 + Java 5 still be supported, or will support for 1.3 be dropped
totally? If so, it would then be nice that an upgrade from 1.3 with Java5
wi
Hi,
I was wondering to what extent it is possible to have generics added to
1.3 but have it compile to 1.4 if necessary? Isn't that a just a
question of not using other Java 1.5 constructs such as enums and new
JDK classes? Wouldn't that solve most people's problems that need to
stick to Java
This thread is the accompanying discussion thread for the ongoing vote
on the same subject. Please use this discussion thread for voicing
your opinion or asking questions. This makes counting the votes much
easier.
The discussion on our development list makes it clear that a lot of
folks are anxio
11 matches
Mail list logo
