i am planning on backporting ialternateparentprovider still. of course if you want to beat me to it with a patch you are most welcome.
-igor On 4/25/07, Jan Vermeulen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am now porting our code, and already came across a number of issues: * no longer support for alternate parents * MarkupContainer.add() (where we could implement our own alternate parent logic) is final * Component.getModel() is now final When I get all code ported & debugged, I will point out the issues I encountered, and make any suggestions where appropriate. Jan. Johan Compagner wrote: > > and if you do your port now from 2.0 to 1.3 > then you could maybe point us to a feature that was in 2.0 but is > overlooked > by use to backport > > johan > > > On 4/24/07, Jan Vermeulen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> OK, thanks a lot. >> >> >> Martijn Dashorst wrote: >> > >> > You can track the backports on the wiki: >> > >> > http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/backporting-features-from-trunk.html >> > >> > Trunk is the main development. As long as we don't put 1.3 in >> > maintenance mode (which will occur somewhere around 1.3.0 and 1.3.1), >> > it will be 1.3. 1.3 will then be moved to branches/wicket-1.3 (and bug >> > fixes will go there), and future development continues on trunk >> > (wicket x.y, which is the version you want). >> > >> > Martijn >> > >> > On 4/24/07, Jan Vermeulen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Kan ook moeilijk anders, met die naam... >> >> >> >> But serious now: seen that the first alpha with JDK1.5 is scheduled >> for >> >> 'somewhere after half june' (that might easily be somewhere after the >> >> summer), we want to leave the 'dead' 2.0 branch before that. One >> option >> >> is >> >> join the 1.3 release branch, another is join the new trunk (that might >> >> become the new x.y version). >> >> >> >> Question is: have there been any changes (other than the generics and >> the >> >> constructor change) from the old 2.0 branch that have been backported >> to >> >> the >> >> new trunk ? Or is this trunk just what will become 1.3.1 ? In the last >> >> case, >> >> are there any plans to backport more changes from 2.0 ? Or aren't >> there >> >> just >> >> not any ? I'm referring to refactorings in converters, models, ajax & >> >> versioning, ... >> >> >> >> Jan. >> >> >> >> >> >> Martijn Dashorst wrote: >> >> > >> >> > On 4/24/07, Jan Vermeulen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> Thanks. I had been looking on the developer forum. >> >> > >> >> > Fortunately I could redirect you to the flickr page, saving some >> >> bandwidth >> >> > ;) >> >> > >> >> > (Yes I'm dutch, and therefore cheap!) >> >> > >> >> > Martijn >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com >> >> > Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket >> >> > Wicket 1.2.6 contains a very important fix. Download Wicket now! >> >> > http://wicketframework.org >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> View this message in context: >> >> >> http://www.nabble.com/Timeframe-to-move-wicket---wicket-ext-projects-to-JDK1.5-tf3638110.html#a10162126 >> >> Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com >> > Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket >> > Wicket 1.2.6 contains a very important fix. Download Wicket now! >> > http://wicketframework.org >> > >> > >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/Timeframe-to-move-wicket---wicket-ext-projects-to-JDK1.5-tf3638110.html#a10164517 >> Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Timeframe-to-move-wicket---wicket-ext-projects-to-JDK1.5-tf3638110.html#a10181841 Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
