I dont think 1.4 will be a drop in replacement for 1.3
there are fixes that break stuff.
So a rebuild/compile is i think really needed
But that shouldn't be to much of a problem
But i dont think there will be anybody that will drop in 1.4 jar in a
production system that is now on 1.3.x..
I guess
hrm. but what would happen if you run the jar through
retrotranslator/weaver. it should make it compatible again... at least
that way people who have 1.3 in production and do not want to rebuild
the app can use 1.4 jars and so we dont have to really maintain 1.3
after the branch. at least this was
1.4 will not be a drop in replacement without a recompile anyway.
For example i noticed when i do only generics i suddenly have compile
errors at specific places because. Dont know why exactly but i guess
generics sometimes makes a method narrower in the call or something.
Also i have now more the
im not sure we should fix those things that break the api in 1.4. then
1.4 stops being a drop in replacement for 1.3 and we will have to do
more 1.3 releases instead of telling people to drop in 1.4 jar...
-igor
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 3:08 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Generi
Generics only and really simple stuff that would break api for 1.3.x
(like bugs that need fixing but are api breaks for 1.3.x)
On 3/23/08, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i assigned a bunch of stuff to 1.3.3 that i think would be nice to get
> done for that release. if we have time grea
i assigned a bunch of stuff to 1.3.3 that i think would be nice to get
done for that release. if we have time great, if not it will have to
go to 1.3.4.
i have also moved a bunch of stuff to 1.5-M1 (whatever that version
will be called).
i think we should move everything from 1.4-M1 to 1.5-M1 as
Sounds good to me.
Frank
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i would say lets do it next sunday the 30th. that will give us a week
> to fix whatever we need to.
>
> -igor
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
we should all go through the open issues and put whatever we think we
need to fix for 1.3.3 into that version and remove things from there
that we dont think we need to fix
-igor
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i would say lets do it next sunday the 30
i would say lets do it next sunday the 30th. that will give us a week
to fix whatever we need to.
-igor
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> that sounds fine, but when are we planning for 1.3.3?
> next week sunday evening as a cut off?
>
>
>
> johan
>
that sounds fine, but when are we planning for 1.3.3?
next week sunday evening as a cut off?
johan
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> ok, can we at least wait for 1.3.3 and kill most of the annoyances in that
> one
>
> -igor
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at
ok, can we at least wait for 1.3.3 and kill most of the annoyances in that one
-igor
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> no
> not first WAIT for 1.3.4 and then start working on 1.4
> that a serialized threading model. That is horrible
> We need to mo
no
not first WAIT for 1.3.4 and then start working on 1.4
that a serialized threading model. That is horrible
We need to move on. We are standing still now for weeks.
I dont mind having a trunk and 1 branch for fixes
thats just fine i can cope with that.
So i can work on 1.3.4 and 1.4 at the same
yes, i thought the idea was to first release 1.3.3 and 1.3.4 if
needed, and then branch. if we branch now, all those bug fixes in jira
hava to be applied to two branches.
-igor
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Martijn Dashorst
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is that we then have to main
The problem is that we then have to maintain 2 branches, which sucks.
Martijn
On 3/22/08, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> thats my idea also,
> we can start (if it was me) now with the 1.4 (thats then trunk)
> and have a branch 1.3.
>
> So that we can work on the bugs and make a f
thats my idea also,
we can start (if it was me) now with the 1.4 (thats then trunk)
and have a branch 1.3.
So that we can work on the bugs and make a fully java 5 1.4 version (and fix
bugs that are api breaks if we really dont want those api breaks in 1.3)
johan
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 10:09 AM
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Philip A. Chapman wrote:
> against 2.0. So far, I've fought off the urge to convert to 1.3 simply
> because it doesn't make sense to rewrite for 1.3, then again for 1.4.
> Also, these projects make *heavy* use of generics and it would be a
> terrible pain to re-write them with
are you mad? *VSS!!!*
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> mercurial!
>
> -igor
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 4:39 AM, James Carman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 3/21/08, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > And other than that, I serio
mercurial!
-igor
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 4:39 AM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/21/08, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And other than that, I seriously doubt it's the VCS that's the issue,
> > but rather it's supporting 3 (or more) different branches, testin
On 3/21/08, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And other than that, I seriously doubt it's the VCS that's the issue,
> but rather it's supporting 3 (or more) different branches, testing that
> the patches work accross all branches, making different patches for
> those that don't etc
ote:
Switch your vcs to http://git.or.cz/ git (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 intro ), then merging won't
be a
problem.
Johan Compagner wrote:
But doing a 1.4 release so quickly with only generics means for me
merging of 3 branches.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.n
t;>
>> >
>> > Switch your vcs to http://git.or.cz/ git (
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 intro ), then merging won't
>> > be a
>> > problem.
>> >
>> > Johan Compagner wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
t; be a
> > problem.
> >
> > Johan Compagner wrote:
> > >
> > > But doing a 1.4 release so quickly with only generics means for me
> > > merging of 3 branches.
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> > http://www.nabble.com/Planning-Wicket-Next-Generation-tp16046194p16196479.html
> > Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> >
>
t.or.cz/ git (
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 intro ), then merging won't be
> a
> problem.
>
> Johan Compagner wrote:
> >
> > But doing a 1.4 release so quickly with only generics means for me
> > merging of 3 branches.
>
> --
> View this messag
context:
http://www.nabble.com/Planning-Wicket-Next-Generation-tp16046194p16196479.html
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
ote:
>> > > > > And if the wicket core developers do not want to have 1.3 + 1.4 +
>> 2.0
>> > > > > in
>> > > >
>> > > > parallel: I believe that we old wicket 2.0 users could live with xM1
>> > >
>> > &g
> (=1.3+ Generics)
> > >
> > > > > That means:
> > > > > 1. Not need to support more than 2 branches/Versions
> > > > > 2. Very quick generics for wicket based upan a stable release
> > > > > 3. We old Wicket 2 users now can
> (=1.3+ Generics)
> > >
> > > > > That means:
> > > > > 1. Not need to support more than 2 branches/Versions
> > > > > 2. Very quick generics for wicket based upan a stable release
> > > > > 3. We old Wicket 2 users no
ate to xM1, having new
> > > > features
> > >
> > > and Generics
> > >
> > > > 4. We old Wicket 2 users have to suffer a few API changes until
> > >
> > > releasing x but I think we can live with this.
> > >
> > &
hanges until
> > releasing x but I think we can live with this.
> > >
> > > Stefan
> > >
> > > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> > > Von: Martin Benda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Gesendet: Freitag, 14. März 2008 22:49
> > >
] Im Auftrag von Jeremy Thomerson
Gesendet: Samstag, 15. März 2008 06:38
An: dev@wicket.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Planning Wicket Next Generation
It may be unlikely, but I foresee a potential problem with this. A lot of us
are talking about moving our production apps to this release that includes
richt-
> > Von: Martin Benda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 14. März 2008 22:49
> >
> > An: dev@wicket.apache.org
> > Betreff: Re: Planning Wicket Next Generation
> >
> > ...and the answer is: We would like to see java5-only major release
lanning should be committed to a Wiki document or in JIRA, but
> > for discussion sake, I'll post the milestone list here:
> >
> > M1: generics only
> > M2:
> > M3:
> > M4:
> > M5:
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> > --
> > Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> > Apache Wicket 1.3.1 is released
> > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.1
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Planning-Wicket-Next-Generation-tp16046194p16062416.html
> Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
z 2008 22:49
>
> An: dev@wicket.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Planning Wicket Next Generation
>
> ...and the answer is: We would like to see java5-only major release *ASAP*
> If you are going to add many new features in the next major release, those
> poor "early 2.0 adopters"
t or in JIRA, but
> for discussion sake, I'll post the milestone list here:
>
> M1: generics only
> M2:
> M3:
> M4:
> M5:
>
> Martijn
>
> --
> Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> Apache Wicket 1.3.1 is released
> Get it now: http://www.apac
releasing x but I think we can live with this.
Stefan
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Martin Benda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Freitag, 14. März 2008 22:49
An: dev@wicket.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Planning Wicket Next Generation
...and the answer is: We would like to see java5-only m
. März 2008 22:49
An: dev@wicket.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Planning Wicket Next Generation
...and the answer is: We would like to see java5-only major release *ASAP* If
you are going to add many new features in the next major release, those poor
"early 2.0 adopters" (like me and my co-wor
ssage-
From: "James Carman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: dev@wicket.apache.org
Sent: 3/14/08 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: Planning Wicket Next Generation
On 3/14/08, Jeremy Thomerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I definitely don't have any votes in this, but I have several producti
>
> > > I totally agree with your opinion: "Quit punishing us 2.0 early
> > > adopters already".
> > >
> > > It is still a pleasuere to use OLD wicket 2.0 and it still works
> > > pretty stable. And I am sure it will be much more pl
am sure it will be much more pleasure to work with a
> > generified wicket 1.4/2.0
> >
> > Stefan
> >
> > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> > Von: Philip A. Chapman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 14. März 2008 22:00
> > An
D wicket 2.0 and it still works pretty
> stable. And I am sure it will be much more pleasure to work with a
> generified wicket 1.4/2.0
>
> Stefan
>
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Philip A. Chapman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Gesendet: Freitag, 14. März 2008 22:00
>
wicket.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Planning Wicket Next Generation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
++1
I've been waiting on generics since 2.0 was killed. As an early adopter of
2.0, I've been struggling with a few projects that where written against 2.0.
So far,
On 3/14/08, Jeremy Thomerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I definitely don't have any votes in this, but I have several production apps
> running with Wicket, and use 1.5 / generics in all of them. Has there been
> any discussion of a faster release that ONLY includes generics? Last I
> rememb
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Johan Compagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: dev@wicket.apache.org
> Sent: 3/14/08 4:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Planning Wicket Next Generation
>
> Its not that revolutionairy.
> For example if 1.4 was just 1.3+generics th
r" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: dev@wicket.apache.org
Sent: 3/14/08 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: Planning Wicket Next Generation
Its not that revolutionairy.
For example if 1.4 was just 1.3+generics then if your project like
vocus thats already on 1.5 it would be a drop in replacement. So api
and '
Its not that revolutionairy.
For example if 1.4 was just 1.3+generics then if your project like
vocus thats already on 1.5 it would be a drop in replacement. So api
and 'feature' wise not much has happend then, only easy of development
(for most not all are fans ;))
On 3/14/08, Martijn Dashorst <[
I dont think that wil really happen that we will backport changes
that are to big to do in 1.3.x so that we create 1.4 thats 1.3 with
specific changes but still java4.
We will have then 3 branches again the thing we want to avoid.
Johan
On 3/14/08, Nino Saturnino Martinez Vazquez Wael
<[EMAIL PR
> > On 3/14/08, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > is the next release an evolution or revolution? :) i think first we
> > > need to make a list of all major things we want to go into it, and
> > > then decide.
> >
> > I think it counts as revolutionary: abandoning Java 1.4 i
On 3/14/08, Nino Saturnino Martinez Vazquez Wael
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not binding. But still have an oppion:)
>
> Id say go for 2.0 if it includes generics, it'll leave space for
> maintenance releases on the 1.3 branch. And clearly signal that
> something big has happend, namely that
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Martijn Dashorst
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/14/08, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > is the next release an evolution or revolution? :) i think first we
> > need to make a list of all major things we want to go into it, and
> > then decide.
>
Not binding. But still have an oppion:)
Id say go for 2.0 if it includes generics, it'll leave space for
maintenance releases on the 1.3 branch. And clearly signal that
something big has happend, namely that you now need to use java 1.5
my thoughts..
regards Nino
Martijn Dashorst wrote
On 3/14/08, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> is the next release an evolution or revolution? :) i think first we
> need to make a list of all major things we want to go into it, and
> then decide.
I think it counts as revolutionary: abandoning Java 1.4 is
revolutionary I think.
> >
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 1:04 AM, Martijn Dashorst
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1 - wicket 1.4 or 2.0 (for now I'll refer to Wicket Next Generation (WNG)?
is the next release an evolution or revolution? :) i think first we
need to make a list of all major things we want to go into it, and
then de
>
> 3 - how many milestones do we plan?
> 4 - which features go into each milestone?
>
> 1: Wicket 1.4 or 2.0?
>
> If I remember correctly we decided on 2.0 with a small margin.
1.4 or 2.0 depends on me how fast and and how big change the next release
will bring
Is it just generics and some nice
All,
With 1.3.2 out the door we should start planning our next release.
We have agreed upon doing milestone releases to give our current users
a quick and easy way to play with the new features, such as generics.
Between those milestones we don't promise API stability, so if
generics don't work o
54 matches
Mail list logo
