Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Anders Peterson]

Sounds very good!

Generally I try to stay away from beta versions, but in the case of 
Wicket 1.4/2.0 I think I'll make an exception.

/Anders

Eelco Hillenius wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> It ended in us agreeing we should get rid of the constructor change.
> 
> We currently working on backporting all the 2.0 features to 1.3,
> except for the constructor change and the JDK 5 features. You can
> track the progress of that here:
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Backporting+features+from+trunk.
> As you can see, we're progressing pretty quickly. After that is done,
> we'll move the current trunk somewhere and replace it with the code of
> 1.3 and add the JDK 5 features (basically generified models and
> components). We're probably gonna call that release 2.0, though 1.4 is
> still an option.
> 
> So in a couple of weeks, the net result is that we'll have a Wicket
> version that is everything Wicket 2.0 is now bar the constructor
> change. 1.3 and that version will be very close to each other (so much
> easier to maintain), and it'll be easier for people comming from 1.2
> or 1.3 to move to that version.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Eelco
> 
> On 3/27/07, Anders Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How did this end - what's the plan? /Anders
>>
>> Eelco Hillenius wrote:
>>> I didn't mean that bad. I would just prefer someone else to do the next 
>>> vote.
>>>
>>> Eelco
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/14/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 i guess sacrasm and frustration dont transfer well over email :|

 -igor


 On 3/14/07, Eelco Hillenius < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/14/07, Igor Vaynberg < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> well obviously we cannot poll for that until we have decided what 1.3
 will
>> be. so first you need a poll on that, then you need a poll that depends
 on
>> that poll so we can decide when to drop support for 1.5. and then
 another
>> poll on the what to do next, but that poll has to depend on the previous
 two
>> polls. and while all these polls are going on no one is doing anything
>> because nothing is certain. do i commit to 2.0? naah, maybe into 1.3.
 but
>> wait i dont know if i can put this into 1.3 because a poll on that is
 still
>> going on. blah blah blah blah.
> We are looking for consensus, and as we're doing that on the mailing
> list, yes there will be a couple of bounces back and forth.
>
> But I think we pretty much know all the options now. I've been
> sticking my neck out with polls and proposals a couple of times now,
> so Igor, why don't you write that next ultimate all-compassing vote
> where we can decide on ditching the constructor refactor and when and
> how?
>
> Eelco
>
>
 -
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
 your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
>
 http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> ___
> Wicket-user mailing list
> Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
>
 -
 Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
 Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share 
 your
 opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
 http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
 ___
 Wicket-user mailing list
 Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user


>>> -
>>> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
>>> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
>>> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
>>> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
>>
>> -
>> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
>> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
>> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
>> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
>> ___
>> Wicket-user mailing list
>> Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
>>
> 
> -
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceFo

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Eelco Hillenius]

Hi,

It ended in us agreeing we should get rid of the constructor change.

We currently working on backporting all the 2.0 features to 1.3,
except for the constructor change and the JDK 5 features. You can
track the progress of that here:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Backporting+features+from+trunk.
As you can see, we're progressing pretty quickly. After that is done,
we'll move the current trunk somewhere and replace it with the code of
1.3 and add the JDK 5 features (basically generified models and
components). We're probably gonna call that release 2.0, though 1.4 is
still an option.

So in a couple of weeks, the net result is that we'll have a Wicket
version that is everything Wicket 2.0 is now bar the constructor
change. 1.3 and that version will be very close to each other (so much
easier to maintain), and it'll be easier for people comming from 1.2
or 1.3 to move to that version.

Regards,

Eelco

On 3/27/07, Anders Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How did this end - what's the plan? /Anders
>
> Eelco Hillenius wrote:
> > I didn't mean that bad. I would just prefer someone else to do the next 
> > vote.
> >
> > Eelco
> >
> >
> > On 3/14/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> i guess sacrasm and frustration dont transfer well over email :|
> >>
> >> -igor
> >>
> >>
> >> On 3/14/07, Eelco Hillenius < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> On 3/14/07, Igor Vaynberg < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  well obviously we cannot poll for that until we have decided what 1.3
> >> will
>  be. so first you need a poll on that, then you need a poll that depends
> >> on
>  that poll so we can decide when to drop support for 1.5. and then
> >> another
>  poll on the what to do next, but that poll has to depend on the previous
> >> two
>  polls. and while all these polls are going on no one is doing anything
>  because nothing is certain. do i commit to 2.0? naah, maybe into 1.3.
> >> but
>  wait i dont know if i can put this into 1.3 because a poll on that is
> >> still
>  going on. blah blah blah blah.
> >>> We are looking for consensus, and as we're doing that on the mailing
> >>> list, yes there will be a couple of bounces back and forth.
> >>>
> >>> But I think we pretty much know all the options now. I've been
> >>> sticking my neck out with polls and proposals a couple of times now,
> >>> so Igor, why don't you write that next ultimate all-compassing vote
> >>> where we can decide on ditching the constructor refactor and when and
> >>> how?
> >>>
> >>> Eelco
> >>>
> >>>
> >> -
> >>> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> >>> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
> >> your
> >>> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> >>>
> >> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> >>> ___
> >>> Wicket-user mailing list
> >>> Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
> >>>
> >>
> >> -
> >> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> >> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share 
> >> your
> >> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> >> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> >> ___
> >> Wicket-user mailing list
> >> Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
> >>
> >>
> >
> > -
> > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
>
>
> -
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> ___
> Wicket-user mailing list
> Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
>

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
__

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Anders Peterson]

How did this end - what's the plan? /Anders

Eelco Hillenius wrote:
> I didn't mean that bad. I would just prefer someone else to do the next vote.
> 
> Eelco
> 
> 
> On 3/14/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> i guess sacrasm and frustration dont transfer well over email :|
>>
>> -igor
>>
>>
>> On 3/14/07, Eelco Hillenius < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On 3/14/07, Igor Vaynberg < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 well obviously we cannot poll for that until we have decided what 1.3
>> will
 be. so first you need a poll on that, then you need a poll that depends
>> on
 that poll so we can decide when to drop support for 1.5. and then
>> another
 poll on the what to do next, but that poll has to depend on the previous
>> two
 polls. and while all these polls are going on no one is doing anything
 because nothing is certain. do i commit to 2.0? naah, maybe into 1.3.
>> but
 wait i dont know if i can put this into 1.3 because a poll on that is
>> still
 going on. blah blah blah blah.
>>> We are looking for consensus, and as we're doing that on the mailing
>>> list, yes there will be a couple of bounces back and forth.
>>>
>>> But I think we pretty much know all the options now. I've been
>>> sticking my neck out with polls and proposals a couple of times now,
>>> so Igor, why don't you write that next ultimate all-compassing vote
>>> where we can decide on ditching the constructor refactor and when and
>>> how?
>>>
>>> Eelco
>>>
>>>
>> -
>>> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
>>> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
>> your
>>> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
>>>
>> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
>>> ___
>>> Wicket-user mailing list
>>> Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
>>>
>>
>> -
>> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
>> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
>> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
>> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
>> ___
>> Wicket-user mailing list
>> Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
>>
>>
> 
> -
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV


-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Ryan Holmes]

On Mar 14, 2007, at 9:13 AM, Anders Peterson wrote:

> Is the feature set for 1.3 set? I vote to remove everything that may
> delay the release of that version.
I think you should take whatever time you need to make 1.3 a full  
featured release that won't be obsolete in the near future.

-Ryan

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Ryan Holmes]

On Mar 9, 2007, at 11:33 PM, Eelco Hillenius wrote:
>
> a) focus on stabilizing 1.3 first, meanwhile keep supporting 2.0
> (though only for bugfixes). 1.4 will be the release with backports of
> the currently missing 2.0 features, and 1.5 will be 1.4 + the Java 5
> features (including generics).
>
> b) as a) but rather than developing 1.3 up to a final release, freeze
> asap (only fix bugs) and start on 1.4
>
> c) put all backports except for the Java 5 features in 1.3 after the
> beta1 release (which we agreed upon doing this weekend). 1.4 will be
> for the Java 5 features, and the branch should be started as soon as
> 1.3 is feature complete.
>
C seems like the most reasonable plan, except don't bother with a  
beta while major changes are still pending (just do the "snapshot"  
that has already been mentioned).

-Ryan

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Eelco Hillenius]

> i came over from another framework to wicket because i didnt like the
> api change with every release there and liked the way wicket does things.
>
> first i was not sure which version of wicket to use and read the mailing
> list and found out, that 2.0 suits best to me. after starting 2 bigger
> projects with 2.0 which have deadline in a few weeks, i would appreciate
> any (fast ;-)) decision of you regarding the future of 2.0 as for me it
> doesn't make sense to ride a dying horse and probably have to backport
> my 2.0 components to 1.3 (coz of the missing generics support and
> constructor change) and later in a few weeks port them to new 1.5 (or
> 1.6/1.7...) to be up to date and use them in my next projects.

As far as I am concerned, we could make a decision this week, and I
can reserve this weekend to work on porting and preparing and - though
it may take a while before we have actual releases - I hope we'll be
able to get something workable in SVN soon (like by next week).

Regards,

Eelco

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Harald Gruber]

hi,

i came over from another framework to wicket because i didnt like the 
api change with every release there and liked the way wicket does things.

first i was not sure which version of wicket to use and read the mailing 
list and found out, that 2.0 suits best to me. after starting 2 bigger 
projects with 2.0 which have deadline in a few weeks, i would appreciate 
any (fast ;-)) decision of you regarding the future of 2.0 as for me it 
doesn't make sense to ride a dying horse and probably have to backport 
my 2.0 components to 1.3 (coz of the missing generics support and 
constructor change) and later in a few weeks port them to new 1.5 (or 
1.6/1.7...) to be up to date and use them in my next projects.

just my personal opinion,
cheers
h.

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Eelco Hillenius]

I didn't mean that bad. I would just prefer someone else to do the next vote.

Eelco


On 3/14/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i guess sacrasm and frustration dont transfer well over email :|
>
> -igor
>
>
> On 3/14/07, Eelco Hillenius < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 3/14/07, Igor Vaynberg < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > well obviously we cannot poll for that until we have decided what 1.3
> will
> > > be. so first you need a poll on that, then you need a poll that depends
> on
> > > that poll so we can decide when to drop support for 1.5. and then
> another
> > > poll on the what to do next, but that poll has to depend on the previous
> two
> > > polls. and while all these polls are going on no one is doing anything
> > > because nothing is certain. do i commit to 2.0? naah, maybe into 1.3.
> but
> > > wait i dont know if i can put this into 1.3 because a poll on that is
> still
> > > going on. blah blah blah blah.
> >
> > We are looking for consensus, and as we're doing that on the mailing
> > list, yes there will be a couple of bounces back and forth.
> >
> > But I think we pretty much know all the options now. I've been
> > sticking my neck out with polls and proposals a couple of times now,
> > so Igor, why don't you write that next ultimate all-compassing vote
> > where we can decide on ditching the constructor refactor and when and
> > how?
> >
> > Eelco
> >
> >
> -
> > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
> your
> > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> >
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> > ___
> > Wicket-user mailing list
> > Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
> >
>
>
> -
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> ___
> Wicket-user mailing list
> Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
>
>

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Marc-Andre Houle]

From a user base standpoint, I am just waiting for core developer to decide

something...

On 3/14/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On 3/14/07, Anders Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don't poll too much - just decide on something. The core development
> team is relatively small isn't it... /Anders

But the user base isn't anymore.

Eelco

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Igor Vaynberg]

i guess sacrasm and frustration dont transfer well over email :|

-igor


On 3/14/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On 3/14/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> well obviously we cannot poll for that until we have decided what 1.3will
> be. so first you need a poll on that, then you need a poll that depends
on
> that poll so we can decide when to drop support for 1.5. and then
another
> poll on the what to do next, but that poll has to depend on the previous
two
> polls. and while all these polls are going on no one is doing anything
> because nothing is certain. do i commit to 2.0? naah, maybe into 1.3.
but
> wait i dont know if i can put this into 1.3 because a poll on that is
still
> going on. blah blah blah blah.

We are looking for consensus, and as we're doing that on the mailing
list, yes there will be a couple of bounces back and forth.

But I think we pretty much know all the options now. I've been
sticking my neck out with polls and proposals a couple of times now,
so Igor, why don't you write that next ultimate all-compassing vote
where we can decide on ditching the constructor refactor and when and
how?

Eelco

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Eelco Hillenius]

On 3/14/07, Anders Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don't poll too much - just decide on something. The core development
> team is relatively small isn't it... /Anders

But the user base isn't anymore.

Eelco

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Eelco Hillenius]

On 3/14/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> well obviously we cannot poll for that until we have decided what 1.3 will
> be. so first you need a poll on that, then you need a poll that depends on
> that poll so we can decide when to drop support for 1.5. and then another
> poll on the what to do next, but that poll has to depend on the previous two
> polls. and while all these polls are going on no one is doing anything
> because nothing is certain. do i commit to 2.0? naah, maybe into 1.3. but
> wait i dont know if i can put this into 1.3 because a poll on that is still
> going on. blah blah blah blah.

We are looking for consensus, and as we're doing that on the mailing
list, yes there will be a couple of bounces back and forth.

But I think we pretty much know all the options now. I've been
sticking my neck out with polls and proposals a couple of times now,
so Igor, why don't you write that next ultimate all-compassing vote
where we can decide on ditching the constructor refactor and when and
how?

Eelco

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Anders Peterson]

Don't poll too much - just decide on something. The core development 
team is relatively small isn't it... /Anders

Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> well obviously we cannot poll for that until we have decided what 1.3 
> will be. so first you need a poll on that, then you need a poll that 
> depends on that poll so we can decide when to drop support for 1.5. and 
> then another poll on the what to do next, but that poll has to depend on 
> the previous two polls. and while all these polls are going on no one is 
> doing anything because nothing is certain. do i commit to 2.0? naah, 
> maybe into 1.3. but wait i dont know if i can put this into 1.3 because 
> a poll on that is still going on. blah blah blah blah.
> 
> create a few variations of the roadmap. put them into a single poll. 
> lets poll, and vote on that and restore some sanity.
> 
> -igor
> 
> 
> On 3/14/07, *Eelco Hillenius* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > wrote:
> 
> This thread is about 'Reverting the constructor change of 2.0', not
> about 'Stop supporting < JDK 1.5  after 1.3'.
> 
> Eelco
> 
> On 3/14/07, Igor Vaynberg < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>  > isnt this thread a poll? how many polls of the same thing do we
> need? omfg
>  > ponies!
>  >
>  > -igor
>  >
>  >
>  > On 3/14/07, Eelco Hillenius < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>  > >
>  > > > Maintaining Wicket 1.3 should be for bug fixes, not new
> features. But
>  > > > that doesn't prevent new components to be developed, or
> backported by
>  > > > our community if there is a need for JDK 1.4 components. And
> if you
>  > > > really have a need, then you can always use
> retrotranslator/weaver to
>  > > > backport 1.5 for your own pleasure.
>  > >
>  > > If that would be the consensus, we could consider skipping
> backporting
>  > > those last 2.0 features and just put them in 1.4 together with
> the JDK
>  > > 5 features.
>  > >
>  > > Who wants to write the poll?
>  > >
>  > > Eelco
>  > >
>  > >
>  >
> -
>  > > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
>  > > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance
> to share
>  > your
>  > > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn
> cash
>  > >
>  >
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> 
> 
>  > > ___
>  > > Wicket-user mailing list
>  > > Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> 
>  > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
>  > >
>  >
>  >
>  >
> -
> 
>  > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
>  > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to
> share your
>  > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
>  >
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> 
> 
>  > ___
>  > Wicket-user mailing list
>  > Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> 
>  > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
> 
>  >
>  >
> 
> -
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to
> share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> 
> 
> ___
> Wicket-user mailing list
> Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> 
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> 


--

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Igor Vaynberg]

well obviously we cannot poll for that until we have decided what 1.3 will
be. so first you need a poll on that, then you need a poll that depends on
that poll so we can decide when to drop support for 1.5. and then another
poll on the what to do next, but that poll has to depend on the previous two
polls. and while all these polls are going on no one is doing anything
because nothing is certain. do i commit to 2.0? naah, maybe into 1.3. but
wait i dont know if i can put this into 1.3 because a poll on that is still
going on. blah blah blah blah.

create a few variations of the roadmap. put them into a single poll. lets
poll, and vote on that and restore some sanity.

-igor


On 3/14/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


This thread is about 'Reverting the constructor change of 2.0', not
about 'Stop supporting < JDK 1.5  after 1.3'.

Eelco

On 3/14/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> isnt this thread a poll? how many polls of the same thing do we need?
omfg
> ponies!
>
> -igor
>
>
> On 3/14/07, Eelco Hillenius < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Maintaining Wicket 1.3 should be for bug fixes, not new features.
But
> > > that doesn't prevent new components to be developed, or backported
by
> > > our community if there is a need for JDK 1.4 components. And if you
> > > really have a need, then you can always use retrotranslator/weaver
to
> > > backport 1.5 for your own pleasure.
> >
> > If that would be the consensus, we could consider skipping backporting
> > those last 2.0 features and just put them in 1.4 together with the JDK
> > 5 features.
> >
> > Who wants to write the poll?
> >
> > Eelco
> >
> >
>
-
> > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to
share
> your
> > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> >
>
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> > ___
> > Wicket-user mailing list
> > Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
> >
>
>
>
-
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
>
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> ___
> Wicket-user mailing list
> Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
>
>

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Eelco Hillenius]

This thread is about 'Reverting the constructor change of 2.0', not
about 'Stop supporting < JDK 1.5  after 1.3'.

Eelco

On 3/14/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> isnt this thread a poll? how many polls of the same thing do we need? omfg
> ponies!
>
> -igor
>
>
> On 3/14/07, Eelco Hillenius < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Maintaining Wicket 1.3 should be for bug fixes, not new features. But
> > > that doesn't prevent new components to be developed, or backported by
> > > our community if there is a need for JDK 1.4 components. And if you
> > > really have a need, then you can always use retrotranslator/weaver to
> > > backport 1.5 for your own pleasure.
> >
> > If that would be the consensus, we could consider skipping backporting
> > those last 2.0 features and just put them in 1.4 together with the JDK
> > 5 features.
> >
> > Who wants to write the poll?
> >
> > Eelco
> >
> >
> -
> > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
> your
> > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> >
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> > ___
> > Wicket-user mailing list
> > Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
> >
>
>
> -
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> ___
> Wicket-user mailing list
> Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
>
>

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Igor Vaynberg]

isnt this thread a poll? how many polls of the same thing do we need? omfg
ponies!

-igor


On 3/14/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> Maintaining Wicket 1.3 should be for bug fixes, not new features. But
> that doesn't prevent new components to be developed, or backported by
> our community if there is a need for JDK 1.4 components. And if you
> really have a need, then you can always use retrotranslator/weaver to
> backport 1.5 for your own pleasure.

If that would be the consensus, we could consider skipping backporting
those last 2.0 features and just put them in 1.4 together with the JDK
5 features.

Who wants to write the poll?

Eelco

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Anders Peterson]

1) I think you're overestimating the trouble that would cause. The only 
thing they're not getting is new features after the next release. In 
terms of new (major) releases no one has gotten anything for almost a year.

2) You also lose something by not moving to Java5... Wicket can be 
better with Java5. The fact that Wicket has not yet adopted Java5 means 
it is not as good as it could be.

Java5 is not just a minor upgrade. If anything ever should have been 
called Java2 it's Java 1.5/5.0 ;-)

/Anders

Eelco Hillenius wrote:
> On 3/14/07, Anders Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Do you plan to still release new features for "old" Java after you've
>> released a Java5 version? That seems crazy.
>>
>> Make one last release for JDK 1.4 and after that it's bug fixing only.
>> All new development should target Java5. Wicket should have moved to
>> Java5 at least one year ago!
> 
> We did actually with Wicket 2.0 which started over a year ago. But we
> haven't gotten around to releasing for many reasons.
> 
> As for dropping < JDK 1.5 support: I think the committers would love
> that, but it would bring a bunch of users in trouble I'm afraid. Maybe
> we should have a poll about that.
> 
> Eelco
> 
> -
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV


-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Eelco Hillenius]

> Maintaining Wicket 1.3 should be for bug fixes, not new features. But
> that doesn't prevent new components to be developed, or backported by
> our community if there is a need for JDK 1.4 components. And if you
> really have a need, then you can always use retrotranslator/weaver to
> backport 1.5 for your own pleasure.

If that would be the consensus, we could consider skipping backporting
those last 2.0 features and just put them in 1.4 together with the JDK
5 features.

Who wants to write the poll?

Eelco

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Martijn Dashorst]

On 3/14/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/14/07, Anders Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Make one last release for JDK 1.4 and after that it's bug fixing only.
> > All new development should target Java5. Wicket should have moved to
> > Java5 at least one year ago!

I beg to differ. Though I only use Java 1.5 on our internal projects,
I know several companies that require the use of Java 1.4, at least
for now. I would not have liked it when we lost those companies.

> As for dropping < JDK 1.5 support: I think the committers would love
> that, but it would bring a bunch of users in trouble I'm afraid. Maybe
> we should have a poll about that.

I think that is a good idea. I would welcome Wicket 1.3 to be the last
JDK 1.4 version. It is pretty much a vast improvement over 1.2 and
contains enough features to make 1.4 people happy for a long time I
think.

Maintaining Wicket 1.3 should be for bug fixes, not new features. But
that doesn't prevent new components to be developed, or backported by
our community if there is a need for JDK 1.4 components. And if you
really have a need, then you can always use retrotranslator/weaver to
backport 1.5 for your own pleasure.

Martijn
-- 
Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com
Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now!
http://wicketframework.org

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Eelco Hillenius]

On 3/14/07, Anders Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you plan to still release new features for "old" Java after you've
> released a Java5 version? That seems crazy.
>
> Make one last release for JDK 1.4 and after that it's bug fixing only.
> All new development should target Java5. Wicket should have moved to
> Java5 at least one year ago!

We did actually with Wicket 2.0 which started over a year ago. But we
haven't gotten around to releasing for many reasons.

As for dropping < JDK 1.5 support: I think the committers would love
that, but it would bring a bunch of users in trouble I'm afraid. Maybe
we should have a poll about that.

Eelco

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Anders Peterson]

Do you plan to still release new features for "old" Java after you've 
released a Java5 version? That seems crazy.

Make one last release for JDK 1.4 and after that it's bug fixing only. 
All new development should target Java5. Wicket should have moved to 
Java5 at least one year ago!

/Anders

Eelco Hillenius wrote:
>> 1.3 feature set would be a merge between 2.0 and 1.3 when we drop 2.0
>>
>> And no releasing it quickly will not mean that we will release a java5
>> version quickly
>> because that will mean we will again have multiply branches to support.
> 
> It would be my idea to follow up with a Java 5 version asap though.
> Which is the reason why I'm arguing for folding in the 'missing' ports
> in 1.3 soon, so that we would at least have that out of the way and
> only have two branches which are pretty close to each other. But as
> long as we plan to support JDK 1.4, we have to have two branches I'm
> afraid.
> 
> Eelco
> 
> -
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV


-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Eelco Hillenius]

> 1.3 feature set would be a merge between 2.0 and 1.3 when we drop 2.0
>
> And no releasing it quickly will not mean that we will release a java5
> version quickly
> because that will mean we will again have multiply branches to support.

It would be my idea to follow up with a Java 5 version asap though.
Which is the reason why I'm arguing for folding in the 'missing' ports
in 1.3 soon, so that we would at least have that out of the way and
only have two branches which are pretty close to each other. But as
long as we plan to support JDK 1.4, we have to have two branches I'm
afraid.

Eelco

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Johan Compagner]

no there is a discussion about that.

1.3 feature set would be a merge between 2.0 and 1.3 when we drop 2.0

And no releasing it quickly will not mean that we will release a java5
version quickly
because that will mean we will again have multiply branches to support.

johan


On 3/14/07, Anders Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Is the feature set for 1.3 set? I vote to remove everything that may
delay the release of that version.

With alternative C; when would you estimate 1.4 (Java5) could be released?

/Anders

Johan Compagner wrote:
> 1.4 will be java5 (when C is done first)
> That we can do pretty quickly.
> (not direclty releasing it but usable for people who want 1.3 + java5)
>
> johan
>
>
> On 3/14/07, * Anders Peterson* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>
> Can anyone vote?
>
> I vote for alternative D.
>
> You asked about reverting the constructor change or not. My
> interpretation of the answers you got is: Yes, fine, what ever, but
give
> us generics (for models at least).
>
> Alternative D is: Revert to working on 1 branch (doesn't matter if
it's
> called 1.3 or 2.0) and make moving to Java5 (adding Generics) top
> priority.
>
> /Anders
>
> Eelco Hillenius wrote:
>  > Hi,
>  >
>  > It looks like the discussion around reverting the constructor
change
>  > that we did for 2.0 has cooled down. This email is not a vote
> yet, but
>  > a summary of opinions so far[1]. Those of you Wicket committers
who
>  > didn't have your say yet (Juergen, Frank, Gwyn, Janne, Jan, Ate),
I
>  > consider that an OK for reverting. If not, please reply to the
> thread.
>  > Juergen, you have been working on 2.0 quite a bit. Can you please
>  > state your opinion, and can you tell us whether there are more
>  > functional differences between 1.3 and 2.0 other than the
constructor
>  > change, Java 5 features, the attach/ detach change and improved
> models
>  > and validators?[2]
>  >
>  > I think so far we can safely say reverting is supported broadly.
At
>  > least, of the people who reacted, most stated they actually
preferred
>  > add over the new constructor, and those who were either neutral
> or had
>  > a slight preference for the new constructor would still support
>  > reverting as that would keep the momentum for the project going.
>  >
>  > So, it looks like this may happen. But we'll vote about that in a
> few
>  > days. Before we do that, we have to reach consensus on the
package
>  > we'll vote on. We have some different - and strong - opinions[3]
> so we
>  > need to find a way to bridge that. Here are what I think the
> different
>  > opinions:
>  >
>  > a) focus on stabilizing 1.3 first, meanwhile keep supporting 2.0
>  > (though only for bugfixes). 1.4 will be the release with
backports of
>  > the currently missing 2.0 features, and 1.5 will be 1.4 + the
Java 5
>  > features (including generics).
>  >
>  > b) as a) but rather than developing 1.3 up to a final release,
freeze
>  > asap (only fix bugs) and start on 1.4
>  >
>  > c) put all backports except for the Java 5 features in 1.3 after
the
>  > beta1 release (which we agreed upon doing this weekend). 1.4 will
be
>  > for the Java 5 features, and the branch should be started as soon
as
>  > 1.3 is feature complete.
>  >
>  > Maybe the most constructive way to gather opinions here is to
first
>  > let people plainly state what they prefer before we enter
discussion
>  > mode. So, please state what package you think is the best idea
(or
>  > introduce d if you want), and why.
>  >
>  > Cheers,
>  >
>  > Eelco
>  >
>  > [1]
>
http://www.nabble.com/IMPORTANT%3A-your-opinion-on-the-constructor-change-in-2.0-tf3358738.html#a9350505
> <
http://www.nabble.com/IMPORTANT%3A-your-opinion-on-the-constructor-change-in-2.0-tf3358738.html#a9350505
>
>  >
>
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-IMPORTANT%3A-your-opinion-on-the-constructor-tf3359229.html#a9344068
>  > [2] http://www.nabble.com/State-1.3--features-tf3376983.html
>  > [3]
>
http://www.nabble.com/VOTE%3A-backporting-wicket-2.0-model-change-to-1.3-tf3364601.html
>  > http://www.nabble.com/roadmap-tf3366743.html
>  >
>  >
>
-
>
>  > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
>  > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to
> share your
>  > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn
cash
>  >
>
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> <
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV>
>
>
>
-
>
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash.

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Anders Peterson]

Is the feature set for 1.3 set? I vote to remove everything that may 
delay the release of that version.

With alternative C; when would you estimate 1.4 (Java5) could be released?

/Anders

Johan Compagner wrote:
> 1.4 will be java5 (when C is done first)
> That we can do pretty quickly.
> (not direclty releasing it but usable for people who want 1.3 + java5)
> 
> johan
> 
> 
> On 3/14/07, * Anders Peterson* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > wrote:
> 
> Can anyone vote?
> 
> I vote for alternative D.
> 
> You asked about reverting the constructor change or not. My
> interpretation of the answers you got is: Yes, fine, what ever, but give
> us generics (for models at least).
> 
> Alternative D is: Revert to working on 1 branch (doesn't matter if it's
> called 1.3 or 2.0) and make moving to Java5 (adding Generics) top
> priority.
> 
> /Anders
> 
> Eelco Hillenius wrote:
>  > Hi,
>  >
>  > It looks like the discussion around reverting the constructor change
>  > that we did for 2.0 has cooled down. This email is not a vote
> yet, but
>  > a summary of opinions so far[1]. Those of you Wicket committers who
>  > didn't have your say yet (Juergen, Frank, Gwyn, Janne, Jan, Ate), I
>  > consider that an OK for reverting. If not, please reply to the
> thread.
>  > Juergen, you have been working on 2.0 quite a bit. Can you please
>  > state your opinion, and can you tell us whether there are more
>  > functional differences between 1.3 and 2.0 other than the constructor
>  > change, Java 5 features, the attach/ detach change and improved
> models
>  > and validators?[2]
>  >
>  > I think so far we can safely say reverting is supported broadly. At
>  > least, of the people who reacted, most stated they actually preferred
>  > add over the new constructor, and those who were either neutral
> or had
>  > a slight preference for the new constructor would still support
>  > reverting as that would keep the momentum for the project going.
>  >
>  > So, it looks like this may happen. But we'll vote about that in a
> few
>  > days. Before we do that, we have to reach consensus on the package
>  > we'll vote on. We have some different - and strong - opinions[3]
> so we
>  > need to find a way to bridge that. Here are what I think the
> different
>  > opinions:
>  >
>  > a) focus on stabilizing 1.3 first, meanwhile keep supporting 2.0
>  > (though only for bugfixes). 1.4 will be the release with backports of
>  > the currently missing 2.0 features, and 1.5 will be 1.4 + the Java 5
>  > features (including generics).
>  >
>  > b) as a) but rather than developing 1.3 up to a final release, freeze
>  > asap (only fix bugs) and start on 1.4
>  >
>  > c) put all backports except for the Java 5 features in 1.3 after the
>  > beta1 release (which we agreed upon doing this weekend). 1.4 will be
>  > for the Java 5 features, and the branch should be started as soon as
>  > 1.3 is feature complete.
>  >
>  > Maybe the most constructive way to gather opinions here is to first
>  > let people plainly state what they prefer before we enter discussion
>  > mode. So, please state what package you think is the best idea (or
>  > introduce d if you want), and why.
>  >
>  > Cheers,
>  >
>  > Eelco
>  >
>  > [1]
> 
> http://www.nabble.com/IMPORTANT%3A-your-opinion-on-the-constructor-change-in-2.0-tf3358738.html#a9350505
> 
> 
>  >
> 
> http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-IMPORTANT%3A-your-opinion-on-the-constructor-tf3359229.html#a9344068
>  > [2] http://www.nabble.com/State-1.3--features-tf3376983.html
>  > [3]
> 
> http://www.nabble.com/VOTE%3A-backporting-wicket-2.0-model-change-to-1.3-tf3364601.html
>  > http://www.nabble.com/roadmap-tf3366743.html
>  >
>  >
> -
> 
>  > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
>  > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to
> share your
>  > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
>  >
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to
> share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> 
> 

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Johan Compagner]

1.4 will be java5 (when C is done first)
That we can do pretty quickly.
(not direclty releasing it but usable for people who want 1.3 + java5)

johan


On 3/14/07, Anders Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Can anyone vote?

I vote for alternative D.

You asked about reverting the constructor change or not. My
interpretation of the answers you got is: Yes, fine, what ever, but give
us generics (for models at least).

Alternative D is: Revert to working on 1 branch (doesn't matter if it's
called 1.3 or 2.0) and make moving to Java5 (adding Generics) top
priority.

/Anders

Eelco Hillenius wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It looks like the discussion around reverting the constructor change
> that we did for 2.0 has cooled down. This email is not a vote yet, but
> a summary of opinions so far[1]. Those of you Wicket committers who
> didn't have your say yet (Juergen, Frank, Gwyn, Janne, Jan, Ate), I
> consider that an OK for reverting. If not, please reply to the thread.
> Juergen, you have been working on 2.0 quite a bit. Can you please
> state your opinion, and can you tell us whether there are more
> functional differences between 1.3 and 2.0 other than the constructor
> change, Java 5 features, the attach/ detach change and improved models
> and validators?[2]
>
> I think so far we can safely say reverting is supported broadly. At
> least, of the people who reacted, most stated they actually preferred
> add over the new constructor, and those who were either neutral or had
> a slight preference for the new constructor would still support
> reverting as that would keep the momentum for the project going.
>
> So, it looks like this may happen. But we'll vote about that in a few
> days. Before we do that, we have to reach consensus on the package
> we'll vote on. We have some different - and strong - opinions[3] so we
> need to find a way to bridge that. Here are what I think the different
> opinions:
>
> a) focus on stabilizing 1.3 first, meanwhile keep supporting 2.0
> (though only for bugfixes). 1.4 will be the release with backports of
> the currently missing 2.0 features, and 1.5 will be 1.4 + the Java 5
> features (including generics).
>
> b) as a) but rather than developing 1.3 up to a final release, freeze
> asap (only fix bugs) and start on 1.4
>
> c) put all backports except for the Java 5 features in 1.3 after the
> beta1 release (which we agreed upon doing this weekend). 1.4 will be
> for the Java 5 features, and the branch should be started as soon as
> 1.3 is feature complete.
>
> Maybe the most constructive way to gather opinions here is to first
> let people plainly state what they prefer before we enter discussion
> mode. So, please state what package you think is the best idea (or
> introduce d if you want), and why.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Eelco
>
> [1]
http://www.nabble.com/IMPORTANT%3A-your-opinion-on-the-constructor-change-in-2.0-tf3358738.html#a9350505
>
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-IMPORTANT%3A-your-opinion-on-the-constructor-tf3359229.html#a9344068
> [2] http://www.nabble.com/State-1.3--features-tf3376983.html
> [3]
http://www.nabble.com/VOTE%3A-backporting-wicket-2.0-model-change-to-1.3-tf3364601.html
> http://www.nabble.com/roadmap-tf3366743.html
>
>
-
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
>
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV


-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Johan Compagner]

C as wel.


On 3/10/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> a) focus on stabilizing 1.3 first, meanwhile keep supporting 2.0
> (though only for bugfixes). 1.4 will be the release with backports of
> the currently missing 2.0 features, and 1.5 will be 1.4 + the Java 5
> features (including generics).
>
> b) as a) but rather than developing 1.3 up to a final release, freeze
> asap (only fix bugs) and start on 1.4
>
> c) put all backports except for the Java 5 features in 1.3 after the
> beta1 release (which we agreed upon doing this weekend). 1.4 will be
> for the Java 5 features, and the branch should be started as soon as
> 1.3 is feature complete.

I feel very strongly about choosing c).

Imo, a) takes too long for the people currently working on 2.0
(including myself for Wicket In Action). We basically tell them to
hold their breath until we are ready for it, which in fact punishes
them twice for being early adaptors (who I think we should value
especially giving the type of framework Wicket is).

I think b) would be good if it worked. However, I don't believe it
will. We have been annoyingly slow in putting out releases this year.
Sure there have been lots of reasons for it, but the fact remains that
even though we plan to move fast with releases, we never actually
do[1]. And with all the best intentions, I have absolutely not doubt
that if we follow b), it'll be months up to a year before we reach
1.5.

So for me c) is the best package. We'll have the pain (of which I
doubt the intensity for most people, but let's play with Johan's
branch for that) now, which probably sucks, but it is the quickest way
to get things really stable. We will have implemented all the API
changes we have been thinking about the last 1.5 years, and 1.3 will
be a release that'll be good for a long time. We'll have a separate
branch for Java 5 stuff with 1.4, but as long as we want to support
Java 1.4, we'll have that anyway. The code should be largely the same
except for the generified components and models and some 1.5
constructs. Compared to maintaining the current 2.0 and 1.3, that
should be a piece of cake. A final argument for c) is that it just
pushes us to get it over with.

My 2c,

Eelco


[1]
http://www.nabble.com/remove-add%28%29-and-pass-parent-in-constructor--tf929620.html
The interesting thing there is that even back then there was
discussion on whether to break early or not. I think in hind-sight we
can say that it was a bad decision we didn't do it right away, which
makes my opinion about c) even stronger. We might have been 'stuck'
with the new constructor forever you may argue, but otoh, we might
have found out it wasn't gonna work earlier.

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Anders Peterson]

Can anyone vote?

I vote for alternative D.

You asked about reverting the constructor change or not. My 
interpretation of the answers you got is: Yes, fine, what ever, but give 
us generics (for models at least).

Alternative D is: Revert to working on 1 branch (doesn't matter if it's 
called 1.3 or 2.0) and make moving to Java5 (adding Generics) top priority.

/Anders

Eelco Hillenius wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> It looks like the discussion around reverting the constructor change
> that we did for 2.0 has cooled down. This email is not a vote yet, but
> a summary of opinions so far[1]. Those of you Wicket committers who
> didn't have your say yet (Juergen, Frank, Gwyn, Janne, Jan, Ate), I
> consider that an OK for reverting. If not, please reply to the thread.
> Juergen, you have been working on 2.0 quite a bit. Can you please
> state your opinion, and can you tell us whether there are more
> functional differences between 1.3 and 2.0 other than the constructor
> change, Java 5 features, the attach/ detach change and improved models
> and validators?[2]
> 
> I think so far we can safely say reverting is supported broadly. At
> least, of the people who reacted, most stated they actually preferred
> add over the new constructor, and those who were either neutral or had
> a slight preference for the new constructor would still support
> reverting as that would keep the momentum for the project going.
> 
> So, it looks like this may happen. But we'll vote about that in a few
> days. Before we do that, we have to reach consensus on the package
> we'll vote on. We have some different - and strong - opinions[3] so we
> need to find a way to bridge that. Here are what I think the different
> opinions:
> 
> a) focus on stabilizing 1.3 first, meanwhile keep supporting 2.0
> (though only for bugfixes). 1.4 will be the release with backports of
> the currently missing 2.0 features, and 1.5 will be 1.4 + the Java 5
> features (including generics).
> 
> b) as a) but rather than developing 1.3 up to a final release, freeze
> asap (only fix bugs) and start on 1.4
> 
> c) put all backports except for the Java 5 features in 1.3 after the
> beta1 release (which we agreed upon doing this weekend). 1.4 will be
> for the Java 5 features, and the branch should be started as soon as
> 1.3 is feature complete.
> 
> Maybe the most constructive way to gather opinions here is to first
> let people plainly state what they prefer before we enter discussion
> mode. So, please state what package you think is the best idea (or
> introduce d if you want), and why.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Eelco
> 
> [1] 
> http://www.nabble.com/IMPORTANT%3A-your-opinion-on-the-constructor-change-in-2.0-tf3358738.html#a9350505
> http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-IMPORTANT%3A-your-opinion-on-the-constructor-tf3359229.html#a9344068
> [2] http://www.nabble.com/State-1.3--features-tf3376983.html
> [3] 
> http://www.nabble.com/VOTE%3A-backporting-wicket-2.0-model-change-to-1.3-tf3364601.html
> http://www.nabble.com/roadmap-tf3366743.html
> 
> -
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV


-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Jean-Baptiste Quenot]

* Al Maw:
> Eelco Hillenius wrote:
> > Can I have the opinions of all committers please? Johan is on a skiing
> > trip but opts for c).
> 
> I don't want to do any of A, B or C.
> 
> What I /really/ think we should try to achieve:
> 
> 1. Have long-term JDK 1.4 and JDK 1.5 branches that are easy to
> sync/backport from. These would therefore ideally have, in order of
> importance:
>  - The same constructor/add logic.
>  - The same kind of models.
>  - The same package namespace.
> 
> 2. Avoid pushing out a 1.3 beta that's very different from the RC and
> final releases.
> 
> Provided we do both of those, I don't really care how we get there. 
> Looking at your options, option C breaks that second point pretty badly.
> 
> I still think we should push out 1.3 as-is, do a quick 1.4 with the new 
> models and a package rename from wicket to org.apache.wicket, and create 
> a 1.5 branch as soon as we have a beta/RC of 1.4.

The problem is not the names you  put in front of a released piece
of software.   The problem is how  many branches are you  going to
maintain  at  the  same  time?   At the  beginning  I  liked  your
proposal, but I  think now it's just too optimistic.   We won't be
probably  releasing anything  to  the public  until all  important
features have been backported from trunk.

> Everyone else seems to think that this is a terrible idea, likely to 
> drag on for ages and confuse the users. Given that is therefore a 
> non-flier, I think we should:
>   * Push the model change in right now.
>   * Let it settle for a week or two to catch the worst bugs.
> (If we need a 1.3 alpha-incubator-moderation or whatever to get
> Apache approval, I'm all for that in the meantime.)
>   * Get a 1.3 beta out the door to our users before the end of the month.
> 
> I also think that if we're going to be stuck maintaining 1.3 as the JDK 
> 1.4 branch for a long time (which looks likely), we should change the 
> package namespace to org.apache.wicket for 1.3 right now, as it'll make 
> life easier.
> 
> I guess there's nothing wrong with having a minor release version (like 
> 1.3.2 or something) be the first Apache approved non-incubator release.
> 
> Hopefully if we push the model change into 1.3, no one will want 
> anything else to go in there and we can finally kick it out the door.

I'm +1 with everything you say in the second part of your mail.
I notice that you changed your mind during writing it, that's
good to see you are open, and not narrow-minded at all ;-)
-- 
 Jean-Baptiste Quenot
aka  John Banana   Qwerty
http://caraldi.com/jbq/

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Martijn Dashorst]

The whole gest of the discussion is to remove the constructor change.
It hasn't been decided yet, but the future for the constructor change
seems grim.

Martijn

On 3/14/07, Stefan Lindner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Al Maw wrote
> >I don't want to do any of A, B or C.
>
> I am not a developer of wicket and it's completely up to yours how you do it, 
> but why not the following way:
>
> 1. Keep Wicket 2 and do the constructor change there. Now you have a java 1.4 
> branch (wicket 1.x) and a java 5 branch (wicket 2.0 or call the thing wicket 
> 1.5 or whatever). The very most of Wicket 2 users will not have big trouble 
> to change the constructor. Do the packet name change in 2.0. It's easy to 
> replace "wicket" with "org.apache.wicket..."
>
> 2. Create a branch from 2.0 and call it 1.4. Remove all generic stuff. So you 
> have a Java 1.4 version with classic constructor and without generics but the 
> code is equivalent to 2.0
>
> 3. Now you have two branches that are based on the same codeline and 
> backporting from 2.0 to 1.4 is easy. Create new features in wicket 2 and 
> backport them (just drop the generics and add some type casts) to 1.4.
>
> 4. You can release current 1.3 as a beta and release it soon as it is.
>
> Stefan Lindner
>
> -
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> ___
> Wicket-user mailing list
> Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
>
>
>


-- 
Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com
Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now!
http://wicketframework.org

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Stefan Lindner]

Al Maw wrote
>I don't want to do any of A, B or C.

I am not a developer of wicket and it's completely up to yours how you do it, 
but why not the following way:
 
1. Keep Wicket 2 and do the constructor change there. Now you have a java 1.4 
branch (wicket 1.x) and a java 5 branch (wicket 2.0 or call the thing wicket 
1.5 or whatever). The very most of Wicket 2 users will not have big trouble to 
change the constructor. Do the packet name change in 2.0. It's easy to replace 
"wicket" with "org.apache.wicket..."
 
2. Create a branch from 2.0 and call it 1.4. Remove all generic stuff. So you 
have a Java 1.4 version with classic constructor and without generics but the 
code is equivalent to 2.0
 
3. Now you have two branches that are based on the same codeline and 
backporting from 2.0 to 1.4 is easy. Create new features in wicket 2 and 
backport them (just drop the generics and add some type casts) to 1.4.
 
4. You can release current 1.3 as a beta and release it soon as it is.
 
Stefan Lindner
<>-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Al Maw]

Eelco Hillenius wrote:
> Can I have the opinions of all committers please? Johan is on a skiing
> trip but opts for c).

I don't want to do any of A, B or C.

What I /really/ think we should try to achieve:

1. Have long-term JDK 1.4 and JDK 1.5 branches that are easy to
sync/backport from. These would therefore ideally have, in order of
importance:
 - The same constructor/add logic.
 - The same kind of models.
 - The same package namespace.

2. Avoid pushing out a 1.3 beta that's very different from the RC and
final releases.

Provided we do both of those, I don't really care how we get there. 
Looking at your options, option C breaks that second point pretty badly.

I still think we should push out 1.3 as-is, do a quick 1.4 with the new 
models and a package rename from wicket to org.apache.wicket, and create 
a 1.5 branch as soon as we have a beta/RC of 1.4.

Everyone else seems to think that this is a terrible idea, likely to 
drag on for ages and confuse the users. Given that is therefore a 
non-flier, I think we should:
  * Push the model change in right now.
  * Let it settle for a week or two to catch the worst bugs.
(If we need a 1.3 alpha-incubator-moderation or whatever to get
Apache approval, I'm all for that in the meantime.)
  * Get a 1.3 beta out the door to our users before the end of the month.

I also think that if we're going to be stuck maintaining 1.3 as the JDK 
1.4 branch for a long time (which looks likely), we should change the 
package namespace to org.apache.wicket for 1.3 right now, as it'll make 
life easier.

I guess there's nothing wrong with having a minor release version (like 
1.3.2 or something) be the first Apache approved non-incubator release.

Hopefully if we push the model change into 1.3, no one will want 
anything else to go in there and we can finally kick it out the door.

Al

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Matej Knopp]

I go with crowd, C.

On 3/13/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i would opt for (b) but seems im in a minority :)
>
> -igor
>
>
>
> On 3/13/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > Can I have the opinions of all committers please? Johan is on a skiing
> > trip but opts for c).
> >
> > Eelco
> >
> >
> -
> > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
> your
> > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> >
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> > ___
> > Wicket-user mailing list
> > Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
> >
>
>
> -
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> ___
> Wicket-user mailing list
> Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
>
>

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Igor Vaynberg]

i would opt for (b) but seems im in a minority :)

-igor


On 3/13/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Can I have the opinions of all committers please? Johan is on a skiing
trip but opts for c).

Eelco

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Philip A. Chapman]

I'm not a committer, but I opt for c.

On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 09:38 -0700, Eelco Hillenius wrote:

> Can I have the opinions of all committers please? Johan is on a skiing
> trip but opts for c).
> 
> Eelco
> 
> -
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> ___
> Wicket-user mailing list
> Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
> 

-- 
Philip A. Chapman

Desktop and Web Application Development:
Java, .NET, PostgreSQL, MySQL, MSSQL
Linux, Windows 2000, Windows XP


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Eelco Hillenius]

Can I have the opinions of all committers please? Johan is on a skiing
trip but opts for c).

Eelco

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Scott Swank]

I favor (c) as well.  A release always takes substantial time so the
fewer the better.  In fact, if backporting anything else into 1.3 ends
up being more trouble than anticipated then I vote for rolling it into
1.4 (along with Java5).

Cheers,
Scott

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Igor Vaynberg]

ive talked some with martijn on irc, what we've tentatively agreed on is
this:

since there is a possibility of introducing big api breaks it is too early
for a beta release.

what we are going to do right now is create a non-public "alpha" release.
(although "checkpoint" is a better name for it). this release will only be
made available to the ipmc because its only purpose is to check the legal
status of our code.

-igor

On 3/10/07, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On 10/03/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a) focus on stabilizing 1.3 first, meanwhile keep supporting 2.0
> (though only for bugfixes). 1.4 will be the release with backports of
> the currently missing 2.0 features, and 1.5 will be 1.4 + the Java 5
> features (including generics).
>
> b) as a) but rather than developing 1.3 up to a final release, freeze
> asap (only fix bugs) and start on 1.4
>
> c) put all backports except for the Java 5 features in 1.3 after the
> beta1 release (which we agreed upon doing this weekend). 1.4 will be
> for the Java 5 features, and the branch should be started as soon as
> 1.3 is feature complete.

Hi,
  I've kept quiet, as I've not had a chance to actually get into 2.0,
so have no personal view on rollback, but I'm certainly not going to
go against the experiences of the committers who do have to deal with
the multiple branches.

My preferences would be (c), for the same reasons you state in your
other email.  Regarding the "beta" release, I think we must do the
release ASAP, if for no other reason than to work through the stages
of an Apache release, although I'm not sure what the best designation
is - personally I'd consider calling it a "checkpoint" release, but
that's another matter!

/Gwyn

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Gwyn Evans]

On 10/03/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a) focus on stabilizing 1.3 first, meanwhile keep supporting 2.0
> (though only for bugfixes). 1.4 will be the release with backports of
> the currently missing 2.0 features, and 1.5 will be 1.4 + the Java 5
> features (including generics).
>
> b) as a) but rather than developing 1.3 up to a final release, freeze
> asap (only fix bugs) and start on 1.4
>
> c) put all backports except for the Java 5 features in 1.3 after the
> beta1 release (which we agreed upon doing this weekend). 1.4 will be
> for the Java 5 features, and the branch should be started as soon as
> 1.3 is feature complete.

Hi,
  I've kept quiet, as I've not had a chance to actually get into 2.0,
so have no personal view on rollback, but I'm certainly not going to
go against the experiences of the committers who do have to deal with
the multiple branches.

 My preferences would be (c), for the same reasons you state in your
other email.  Regarding the "beta" release, I think we must do the
release ASAP, if for no other reason than to work through the stages
of an Apache release, although I'm not sure what the best designation
is - personally I'd consider calling it a "checkpoint" release, but
that's another matter!

/Gwyn

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Rüdiger Schulz]

Hello,

as a purse user of Wicket 1.2, I would like to see option c) happen. I'm
really looking forward on upgrading my current app to use some of the
new features, and to do things more elegantly.

Also, I'd like to see Generics support as soon as possible; IModel makes
so much more sense with it, and I am sure it will help especially new
people coming to Wicket.

But most important to me is actually a stable release, for which I'll
get bugfixes. That's why I'm still with 1.2. So, as soon as there'll be
a 1.3 beta (with a stable around the corner) I'll going to start porting
and providing feedback. I did so when switching another app from 1.1 to
1.2 and had a good experience with that (bugs I found in the beta were
fixed withing hours - really cool!)


So, I hope my opinion helps you in your decision making :)


greetings,

Rüdiger


Eelco Hillenius schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> It looks like the discussion around reverting the constructor change
> that we did for 2.0 has cooled down. This email is not a vote yet, but
> a summary of opinions so far[1]. Those of you Wicket committers who
> didn't have your say yet (Juergen, Frank, Gwyn, Janne, Jan, Ate), I
> consider that an OK for reverting. If not, please reply to the thread.
> Juergen, you have been working on 2.0 quite a bit. Can you please
> state your opinion, and can you tell us whether there are more
> functional differences between 1.3 and 2.0 other than the constructor
> change, Java 5 features, the attach/ detach change and improved models
> and validators?[2]
> 
> I think so far we can safely say reverting is supported broadly. At
> least, of the people who reacted, most stated they actually preferred
> add over the new constructor, and those who were either neutral or had
> a slight preference for the new constructor would still support
> reverting as that would keep the momentum for the project going.
> 
> So, it looks like this may happen. But we'll vote about that in a few
> days. Before we do that, we have to reach consensus on the package
> we'll vote on. We have some different - and strong - opinions[3] so we
> need to find a way to bridge that. Here are what I think the different
> opinions:
> 
> a) focus on stabilizing 1.3 first, meanwhile keep supporting 2.0
> (though only for bugfixes). 1.4 will be the release with backports of
> the currently missing 2.0 features, and 1.5 will be 1.4 + the Java 5
> features (including generics).
> 
> b) as a) but rather than developing 1.3 up to a final release, freeze
> asap (only fix bugs) and start on 1.4
> 
> c) put all backports except for the Java 5 features in 1.3 after the
> beta1 release (which we agreed upon doing this weekend). 1.4 will be
> for the Java 5 features, and the branch should be started as soon as
> 1.3 is feature complete.
> 
> Maybe the most constructive way to gather opinions here is to first
> let people plainly state what they prefer before we enter discussion
> mode. So, please state what package you think is the best idea (or
> introduce d if you want), and why.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Eelco
> 
> [1] 
> http://www.nabble.com/IMPORTANT%3A-your-opinion-on-the-constructor-change-in-2.0-tf3358738.html#a9350505
> http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-IMPORTANT%3A-your-opinion-on-the-constructor-tf3359229.html#a9344068
> [2] http://www.nabble.com/State-1.3--features-tf3376983.html
> [3] 
> http://www.nabble.com/VOTE%3A-backporting-wicket-2.0-model-change-to-1.3-tf3364601.html
> http://www.nabble.com/roadmap-tf3366743.html
> 
> -
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> ___
> Wicket-user mailing list
> Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
> 
> 


-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Wilko Hische]

Hi

I am not a committer so I can't really estimate the feasibility of the
various scenarios, but I'd prefer C as it sounds like the fastest road to a
stable release including generics.

Cheers,

Wilko


Eelco Hillenius wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> It looks like the discussion around reverting the constructor change
> that we did for 2.0 has cooled down. This email is not a vote yet, but
> a summary of opinions so far[1]. Those of you Wicket committers who
> didn't have your say yet (Juergen, Frank, Gwyn, Janne, Jan, Ate), I
> consider that an OK for reverting. If not, please reply to the thread.
> Juergen, you have been working on 2.0 quite a bit. Can you please
> state your opinion, and can you tell us whether there are more
> functional differences between 1.3 and 2.0 other than the constructor
> change, Java 5 features, the attach/ detach change and improved models
> and validators?[2]
> 
> I think so far we can safely say reverting is supported broadly. At
> least, of the people who reacted, most stated they actually preferred
> add over the new constructor, and those who were either neutral or had
> a slight preference for the new constructor would still support
> reverting as that would keep the momentum for the project going.
> 
> So, it looks like this may happen. But we'll vote about that in a few
> days. Before we do that, we have to reach consensus on the package
> we'll vote on. We have some different - and strong - opinions[3] so we
> need to find a way to bridge that. Here are what I think the different
> opinions:
> 
> a) focus on stabilizing 1.3 first, meanwhile keep supporting 2.0
> (though only for bugfixes). 1.4 will be the release with backports of
> the currently missing 2.0 features, and 1.5 will be 1.4 + the Java 5
> features (including generics).
> 
> b) as a) but rather than developing 1.3 up to a final release, freeze
> asap (only fix bugs) and start on 1.4
> 
> c) put all backports except for the Java 5 features in 1.3 after the
> beta1 release (which we agreed upon doing this weekend). 1.4 will be
> for the Java 5 features, and the branch should be started as soon as
> 1.3 is feature complete.
> 
> Maybe the most constructive way to gather opinions here is to first
> let people plainly state what they prefer before we enter discussion
> mode. So, please state what package you think is the best idea (or
> introduce d if you want), and why.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Eelco
> 
> [1]
> http://www.nabble.com/IMPORTANT%3A-your-opinion-on-the-constructor-change-in-2.0-tf3358738.html#a9350505
> http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-IMPORTANT%3A-your-opinion-on-the-constructor-tf3359229.html#a9344068
> [2] http://www.nabble.com/State-1.3--features-tf3376983.html
> [3]
> http://www.nabble.com/VOTE%3A-backporting-wicket-2.0-model-change-to-1.3-tf3364601.html
> http://www.nabble.com/roadmap-tf3366743.html
> 
> -
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
> your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> ___
> Wicket-user mailing list
> Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Reverting-the-constructor-change-of-2.0-tf3380114.html#a9408760
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Juergen Donnerstag]

I didn't have much time in the recent to actually work on apps based
on Wicket, neither 1.x not 2.x. Thus I have no experience wih either
and no preference regarding the constructor change. I go with what the
experts decide.

In 2.x there two more changes which have not yet been backported into 1.3
- Localizer
- markup loading based on fragments

I don't thnk there is any magic involved in backporting both, it just
needs some doing and extensive testing.

Juergen

On 3/10/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> c) as well, except I don't think it's that good idea to release a beta
> before that. It certainly ain't beta if we expect the code to change
> that significantly. So imho either call it alpha or release it
> afterwards we commit the changes.
>
> -Matej
>
> Eelco Hillenius wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > It looks like the discussion around reverting the constructor change
> > that we did for 2.0 has cooled down. This email is not a vote yet, but
> > a summary of opinions so far[1]. Those of you Wicket committers who
> > didn't have your say yet (Juergen, Frank, Gwyn, Janne, Jan, Ate), I
> > consider that an OK for reverting. If not, please reply to the thread.
> > Juergen, you have been working on 2.0 quite a bit. Can you please
> > state your opinion, and can you tell us whether there are more
> > functional differences between 1.3 and 2.0 other than the constructor
> > change, Java 5 features, the attach/ detach change and improved models
> > and validators?[2]
> >
> > I think so far we can safely say reverting is supported broadly. At
> > least, of the people who reacted, most stated they actually preferred
> > add over the new constructor, and those who were either neutral or had
> > a slight preference for the new constructor would still support
> > reverting as that would keep the momentum for the project going.
> >
> > So, it looks like this may happen. But we'll vote about that in a few
> > days. Before we do that, we have to reach consensus on the package
> > we'll vote on. We have some different - and strong - opinions[3] so we
> > need to find a way to bridge that. Here are what I think the different
> > opinions:
> >
> > a) focus on stabilizing 1.3 first, meanwhile keep supporting 2.0
> > (though only for bugfixes). 1.4 will be the release with backports of
> > the currently missing 2.0 features, and 1.5 will be 1.4 + the Java 5
> > features (including generics).
> >
> > b) as a) but rather than developing 1.3 up to a final release, freeze
> > asap (only fix bugs) and start on 1.4
> >
> > c) put all backports except for the Java 5 features in 1.3 after the
> > beta1 release (which we agreed upon doing this weekend). 1.4 will be
> > for the Java 5 features, and the branch should be started as soon as
> > 1.3 is feature complete.
> >
> > Maybe the most constructive way to gather opinions here is to first
> > let people plainly state what they prefer before we enter discussion
> > mode. So, please state what package you think is the best idea (or
> > introduce d if you want), and why.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Eelco
> >
> > [1] 
> > http://www.nabble.com/IMPORTANT%3A-your-opinion-on-the-constructor-change-in-2.0-tf3358738.html#a9350505
> > http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-IMPORTANT%3A-your-opinion-on-the-constructor-tf3359229.html#a9344068
> > [2] http://www.nabble.com/State-1.3--features-tf3376983.html
> > [3] 
> > http://www.nabble.com/VOTE%3A-backporting-wicket-2.0-model-change-to-1.3-tf3364601.html
> > http://www.nabble.com/roadmap-tf3366743.html
> >
> > -
> > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> > ___
> > Wicket-user mailing list
> > Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
> >
>
>
> -
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> ___
> Wicket-user mailing list
> Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
>

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Matej Knopp]

c) as well, except I don't think it's that good idea to release a beta 
before that. It certainly ain't beta if we expect the code to change 
that significantly. So imho either call it alpha or release it 
afterwards we commit the changes.

-Matej

Eelco Hillenius wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> It looks like the discussion around reverting the constructor change
> that we did for 2.0 has cooled down. This email is not a vote yet, but
> a summary of opinions so far[1]. Those of you Wicket committers who
> didn't have your say yet (Juergen, Frank, Gwyn, Janne, Jan, Ate), I
> consider that an OK for reverting. If not, please reply to the thread.
> Juergen, you have been working on 2.0 quite a bit. Can you please
> state your opinion, and can you tell us whether there are more
> functional differences between 1.3 and 2.0 other than the constructor
> change, Java 5 features, the attach/ detach change and improved models
> and validators?[2]
> 
> I think so far we can safely say reverting is supported broadly. At
> least, of the people who reacted, most stated they actually preferred
> add over the new constructor, and those who were either neutral or had
> a slight preference for the new constructor would still support
> reverting as that would keep the momentum for the project going.
> 
> So, it looks like this may happen. But we'll vote about that in a few
> days. Before we do that, we have to reach consensus on the package
> we'll vote on. We have some different - and strong - opinions[3] so we
> need to find a way to bridge that. Here are what I think the different
> opinions:
> 
> a) focus on stabilizing 1.3 first, meanwhile keep supporting 2.0
> (though only for bugfixes). 1.4 will be the release with backports of
> the currently missing 2.0 features, and 1.5 will be 1.4 + the Java 5
> features (including generics).
> 
> b) as a) but rather than developing 1.3 up to a final release, freeze
> asap (only fix bugs) and start on 1.4
> 
> c) put all backports except for the Java 5 features in 1.3 after the
> beta1 release (which we agreed upon doing this weekend). 1.4 will be
> for the Java 5 features, and the branch should be started as soon as
> 1.3 is feature complete.
> 
> Maybe the most constructive way to gather opinions here is to first
> let people plainly state what they prefer before we enter discussion
> mode. So, please state what package you think is the best idea (or
> introduce d if you want), and why.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Eelco
> 
> [1] 
> http://www.nabble.com/IMPORTANT%3A-your-opinion-on-the-constructor-change-in-2.0-tf3358738.html#a9350505
> http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-IMPORTANT%3A-your-opinion-on-the-constructor-tf3359229.html#a9344068
> [2] http://www.nabble.com/State-1.3--features-tf3376983.html
> [3] 
> http://www.nabble.com/VOTE%3A-backporting-wicket-2.0-model-change-to-1.3-tf3364601.html
> http://www.nabble.com/roadmap-tf3366743.html
> 
> -
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> ___
> Wicket-user mailing list
> Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
> 


-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Re: [Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Eelco Hillenius]

> a) focus on stabilizing 1.3 first, meanwhile keep supporting 2.0
> (though only for bugfixes). 1.4 will be the release with backports of
> the currently missing 2.0 features, and 1.5 will be 1.4 + the Java 5
> features (including generics).
>
> b) as a) but rather than developing 1.3 up to a final release, freeze
> asap (only fix bugs) and start on 1.4
>
> c) put all backports except for the Java 5 features in 1.3 after the
> beta1 release (which we agreed upon doing this weekend). 1.4 will be
> for the Java 5 features, and the branch should be started as soon as
> 1.3 is feature complete.

I feel very strongly about choosing c).

Imo, a) takes too long for the people currently working on 2.0
(including myself for Wicket In Action). We basically tell them to
hold their breath until we are ready for it, which in fact punishes
them twice for being early adaptors (who I think we should value
especially giving the type of framework Wicket is).

I think b) would be good if it worked. However, I don't believe it
will. We have been annoyingly slow in putting out releases this year.
Sure there have been lots of reasons for it, but the fact remains that
even though we plan to move fast with releases, we never actually
do[1]. And with all the best intentions, I have absolutely not doubt
that if we follow b), it'll be months up to a year before we reach
1.5.

So for me c) is the best package. We'll have the pain (of which I
doubt the intensity for most people, but let's play with Johan's
branch for that) now, which probably sucks, but it is the quickest way
to get things really stable. We will have implemented all the API
changes we have been thinking about the last 1.5 years, and 1.3 will
be a release that'll be good for a long time. We'll have a separate
branch for Java 5 stuff with 1.4, but as long as we want to support
Java 1.4, we'll have that anyway. The code should be largely the same
except for the generified components and models and some 1.5
constructs. Compared to maintaining the current 2.0 and 1.3, that
should be a piece of cake. A final argument for c) is that it just
pushes us to get it over with.

My 2c,

Eelco


[1] 
http://www.nabble.com/remove-add%28%29-and-pass-parent-in-constructor--tf929620.html
The interesting thing there is that even back then there was
discussion on whether to break early or not. I think in hind-sight we
can say that it was a bad decision we didn't do it right away, which
makes my opinion about c) even stronger. We might have been 'stuck'
with the new constructor forever you may argue, but otoh, we might
have found out it wasn't gonna work earlier.

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

[Wicket-user] Reverting the constructor change of 2.0

[Eelco Hillenius]

Hi,

It looks like the discussion around reverting the constructor change
that we did for 2.0 has cooled down. This email is not a vote yet, but
a summary of opinions so far[1]. Those of you Wicket committers who
didn't have your say yet (Juergen, Frank, Gwyn, Janne, Jan, Ate), I
consider that an OK for reverting. If not, please reply to the thread.
Juergen, you have been working on 2.0 quite a bit. Can you please
state your opinion, and can you tell us whether there are more
functional differences between 1.3 and 2.0 other than the constructor
change, Java 5 features, the attach/ detach change and improved models
and validators?[2]

I think so far we can safely say reverting is supported broadly. At
least, of the people who reacted, most stated they actually preferred
add over the new constructor, and those who were either neutral or had
a slight preference for the new constructor would still support
reverting as that would keep the momentum for the project going.

So, it looks like this may happen. But we'll vote about that in a few
days. Before we do that, we have to reach consensus on the package
we'll vote on. We have some different - and strong - opinions[3] so we
need to find a way to bridge that. Here are what I think the different
opinions:

a) focus on stabilizing 1.3 first, meanwhile keep supporting 2.0
(though only for bugfixes). 1.4 will be the release with backports of
the currently missing 2.0 features, and 1.5 will be 1.4 + the Java 5
features (including generics).

b) as a) but rather than developing 1.3 up to a final release, freeze
asap (only fix bugs) and start on 1.4

c) put all backports except for the Java 5 features in 1.3 after the
beta1 release (which we agreed upon doing this weekend). 1.4 will be
for the Java 5 features, and the branch should be started as soon as
1.3 is feature complete.

Maybe the most constructive way to gather opinions here is to first
let people plainly state what they prefer before we enter discussion
mode. So, please state what package you think is the best idea (or
introduce d if you want), and why.

Cheers,

Eelco

[1] 
http://www.nabble.com/IMPORTANT%3A-your-opinion-on-the-constructor-change-in-2.0-tf3358738.html#a9350505
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-IMPORTANT%3A-your-opinion-on-the-constructor-tf3359229.html#a9344068
[2] http://www.nabble.com/State-1.3--features-tf3376983.html
[3] 
http://www.nabble.com/VOTE%3A-backporting-wicket-2.0-model-change-to-1.3-tf3364601.html
http://www.nabble.com/roadmap-tf3366743.html

-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user