Of course not. I believe we did our best. But there were couple of
changes (such as short->int, etc) that needs recompiling. And again,
this was not intentional, it just happened.
-Matej
On 6/27/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I remember many quarrels about maintaining binary co
I remember many quarrels about maintaining binary compatibility... Are
you saying those were for nothing?
/me crawls back in cave
Martijn
On 6/27/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe even i 1.2.6 isn't binary compatible (there might be some
> very small minor changes that slipp
I believe even i 1.2.6 isn't binary compatible (there might be some
very small minor changes that slipped in by accident), it's still
should be almost drop-in replacement, and the upgrade should be rather
painless.
Wicket 1.2.2 is from august 2006, that's almost a year ago.
-Matej
On 6/26/07, Ma
What are you talking about? 1.2.6 is binary compatible with 1.2.2, or
at least that should be the case. If it is not, then that is a bug.
Martijn
On 6/26/07, Nili Adoram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> even upgrade to 1.2.6 is involved with lots of adoptions.
> the question is whether it will solve
even upgrade to 1.2.6 is involved with lots of adoptions.
the question is whether it will solve this issue.
Timo Rantalaiho wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Nili Adoram wrote:
>
>> I am afraid I cannot upgrade at the moment since we don't have the time
>> for massive API changes of 1.3.
>>
>
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Nili Adoram wrote:
> I am afraid I cannot upgrade at the moment since we don't have the time
> for massive API changes of 1.3.
1.2.2 is really ancient, you should use 1.2.6.
- Timo
--
Timo Rantalaiho
Reaktor Innovations Oyhttp://www.ri.fi/ >
sorry :(
I am afraid I cannot upgrade at the moment since we don't have the time
for massive API changes of 1.3.
Is it a simple patch (e.g. replace this javascript file) or a
significant refactoring?
10x
Nili
Matej Knopp wrote:
> Btw, next time, you don't need to post 1000 lines of
> setFullYear(
