It is not completely finished yet. I hope to commit this by the end of the week.
And this will have a big impact on everything.
If the constructor change sits in cvs. I think we need 1 month to stabilize that and make it robust.
I think we can have a release of 2.0 somewhere in september. Or if it is not a release it will be
pretty stable.
But 2.0 is pretty much this:
Java5 and Parent in Constructor change
And other fixes like Converter change, PageMap refactor.
I guess we can backport some features (like pagemap or converter) to 1.2.x
We will maintain the 2 branches for a while (1.2.x and 2.0) because 2.0 is a big change
that some projects at this time will not convert to.
If you start it right now. It is a bit difficult to choose what to do at the moment.
Because trunk will under go a lot of changes the comming month (i think)
johan
On 5/23/06, Mats Norén <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Could you define "a few months"? We're about to start a new project
that may or may not use wicket 2.0 depending on the timetable. The
first release is scheduled in september. Is that to soon for a
reasonably stable wicket 2.0?
Are there any simple issues that a non wicket export could help out with?
/Mats
On 5/21/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/20/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > we did communicate this... See Martijns mails and my replies on it over
> > branching..
> >
>
> Ok, my email was explicitly about it though, AND additionally to
> wicket-user. Doesn't matter, it is communicated now for sure :)
>
> > And if develop now something to get it into production in a few months you
> > should stick to 1.2
> > But if it does take longer you could use trunk. It is now a fast moving
> > target.
> > But many of those changes are java 5 related and that is no behaviour
> > change.. So that shouldn't affect at all.
> > as far as i can see now there is only one big code change: Converters that
> > would affect the compile of code.
>
> Well, even the Java 5 stuff breaks code, and as we're also just half
> way implementing that, I suspect there will be a lot of bugs in it
> currently. And wicket-extensions and wicket-examples don't even
> compile currently. But that's hopefully fixed in a couple of days?
>
> > For the rest only the default change of another kind of pagemap/session
> > store is what needs to be tested
> > but there are people that already tested that when it was in a branch (the
> > clientsidestate branch)
>
> Also, I'd like to get rid of the pre-registration of package
> resources. And maybe backport that if that is done.
>
> Eelco
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid0709&bid&3057&dat1642
> _______________________________________________
> Wicket-user mailing list
> Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
>
-------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid0709&bid&3057&dat1642
_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
