: Jason Porter lightguard...@gmail.com
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 4:45 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-28] ServiceProvider
We have it in Seam, and Weld for that Java 5 support, but I'd
prefer to
stay on 6+. We *could* do
Porter lightguard...@gmail.com
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-28] ServiceProvider
If we wanted to try it later that's fine.
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 02:41, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote:
We
Message -
From: Jakob Korherr jakob.korh...@gmail.com
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-28] ServiceProvider
-1 for supporting Java5
Let Microsoft deal with the legacy stuff ^^
Regards,
Jakob
We could try to use retro-translate to produce java5 compatible artifacts later?
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message -
From: Jason Porter lightguard...@gmail.com
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 4:45 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 4:45 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [DELTASPIKE-28] ServiceProvider
We have it in Seam, and Weld for that Java 5 support, but I'd prefer to
stay on 6+. We *could* do a version compiled for jdk5. But then we get
+1 This is nice for Java5 servers (which there are still a few out there).
Of course this means that we should also not use other Java6 features like
String.isEmpty() and stuff.
Basically this VOTE is about should we support Java5 ?
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message -
From:
We have it in Seam, and Weld for that Java 5 support, but I'd prefer to
stay on 6+. We *could* do a version compiled for jdk5. But then we get into
issues of which branch, making sure it's all Java 5 features, etc.
-0.5
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 04:45, José Rodolfo Freitas
+1
regards,
gerhard
2011/12/21 Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
hi @ all,
fyi: please check [1] before you answer.
[2] is the implementation used in owb. i suggest to start with it (instead
of the version of codi), because the version of codi provides additional
mechanisms
