There are many people out there that are stuck with that dilemma, and your comment is not helpful at all.
-----Original Message----- From: Holger Hoffstaette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 January 2006 16:38 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Tapestry 4.0 is NOT Java 1.3 compliant On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:34:53 +0000, Johny wrote: > At the risk of repeating myself, could I just highlight the issue of 1.3 > compliancy. It was mentioned a few places that Tapestry 4.0 is Java 1.3 > compliant, even thouh some examples are not (using annotations etc.). If you are still using 1.3 for server-side work you practically *deserve* to be ignored by the rest of the world because those VMs are known to have serious deadlock and data corruption bugs. Fire your CTO. I am at a total loss why companies think they can just "decide" that the rest of the world has to freeze just for them. Howard, please start using 1.5 exclusively (if only for util.concurrent) and provide 1.4-compatibility via retrotranslator (http://retrotranslator.sourceforge.net/) which is way better than retroweaver and "just works". -h --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
