On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> +1 for 1.5
>
> that way early adapters can provide feedback and we have the freedom
> to tweak things
OK, thanks for the comments. 1.5 it will be then, it's
better to keep 1.4 as close as 1.3 as possible.
There were some that wanted to use it in 1.3 /
+1 for 1.5
that way early adapters can provide feedback and we have the freedom
to tweak things
-igor
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> not in 1.3
> maybe in 1.4 (but i have to look at it more closely, i think this can result
> in more and more heav
not in 1.3
maybe in 1.4 (but i have to look at it more closely, i think this can result
in more and more heavier stuff inside componets)
1.5 is fine then we can let it evolve in the milestone cycles
johan
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Timo Rantalaiho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Devs,
>
> H
1.3: no API breaks unless absolutely necessary, no new features
(remember: support stops for 1.3!)
1.4: generics only release.
1.5/2.0: new features, api breaks etc.
So 1.5/2.0 according to my recollection of the meanings of our releases.
Martijn
On 3/25/08, Timo Rantalaiho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
Devs,
Have you had time to think about this:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1312
Judging from the interest on this list and in issue
comments, there is demand for an event mechanism in Wicket.
Surely it needs to be developed further from this patch, but
you've got to start from s
wicket itself doesn't, but something *cough*spring*cough* does, and it
gets included in our examples project.
Martijn
On 3/25/08, Ryan Sonnek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> commons-logging? Seriously?? *shudders*
>
> Why does wicket depend on commons-logging when slfj is used?
>
>
> On Tue, Mar
commons-logging? Seriously?? *shudders*
Why does wicket depend on commons-logging when slfj is used?
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Timo Rantalaiho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> > -1
> >
> > Upgrading these kind of things in a stable release is
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> -1
>
> Upgrading these kind of things in a stable release is not preferred.
> Like Gerolf says: it is unclear which dependencies these projects
> have, whether they have Java 5 deps etc.
>
> Upgrading to maintenance versions should be ok but frowned
-1
Upgrading these kind of things in a stable release is not preferred.
Like Gerolf says: it is unclear which dependencies these projects
have, whether they have Java 5 deps etc.
Upgrading to maintenance versions should be ok but frowned upon, minor
or major version upgrades should not be done at
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Gerolf Seitz wrote:
> i just went through our dependency list in wicket-parent/pom.xml to
> check for new releases for the dependencies.
> maybe we want to upgrade some of them: (current version in our pom in
> parentheses)
>
> slf4j-api-1.5 (1.4.2)
> slf4j-log4j12-1.5 (1.4.2)
i just went through our dependency list in wicket-parent/pom.xml to
check for new releases for the dependencies.
maybe we want to upgrade some of them: (current version in our pom in
parentheses)
slf4j-api-1.5 (1.4.2)
slf4j-log4j12-1.5 (1.4.2)
log4j-1.2.15 (1.2.13)
mx4j-3.0.2 (3.0.1)
commons-lang-
Interesting thread on TSS:
http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=48810
Wicket got some mention too :)
Is this something we could schedule for 1.5?
Martijn
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.2 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dy
12 matches
Mail list logo
