At ILOG I had major issues when trying to move from RI to MyFaces as it involved a move to 1.4. Thankfully after almost six months I got approval but it was a pain. There are no moves being made because, just a Heinz mentioned, some large customers are still using Application Servers which are limiting. In some cases even as low as Java 1.3. So moving to 1.5 would be a nightmare for now. I think that even doing this with the 1.2 release would be unwise.
On 11/3/05, Thomas Spiegl
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-1 as well
On 11/2/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -1 for Java 5.0 (for the time being.)
>
> sean
>
> On 11/2/05, Heinz Drews < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I just want to remind that there are still a significant number of
> > sites which cannot move to Java 5 because of restrictions implied by
> > the Application Server used.
> > WebSphere would be here candidate number 1 to be named but I know also
> > a large number of WebLogic sites which cannot migrate to versions
> > supporting Java 5.
> >
> > As long the use of Java 5 features would be compensated by using
> > Retroweaver to produce jars working in 1.4.x runtimes I would be
> > happy. If support for the 1.4.x environments would be stopped I
> > foresee some conflicts.
> >
> > Using Retroweaver is no ideal solution, it would require to provide
> > two parallel jar-structures.
> > But it's better than leaving a lot of sites without a top-level
> > JSF-implementation.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Heinz
> >
> > On 11/2/05, Bill Dudney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I agree,
> > >
> > > lets wait until we branch then start putting the 5.0 syntax.
> > >
> > > TTFN,
> > >
> > > -bd-
> > >
> > > On Nov 2, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Martin Marinschek wrote:
> > >
> > > > IMHO: No, we shouldn't.
> > > >
> > > > as soon as we branch of for 1.2, we will.
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > >
> > > > Martin
> > > >
> > > > On 11/2/05, Grant Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >> Speaking of JDK1.5, now that we've released a TCK-compliant JSF 1.1
> > > >> implementation, and we're looking to the future, should we start
> > > >> allowing 1.5 syntax in the HEAD ?
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm also now using .jspx (JSP XML format) exclusively in my own
> > > >> projects, as it's easier to edit in XML editors and just *looks*
> > > >> cleaner. Converting our example .jsp s should not be a huge task.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Martin Marinschek wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> @srcs not compiling:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That's Travis working on JDK1.5 who hasn't ensured backwards
> > > >>> compatibility.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > http://www.irian.at
> > > > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > > > JSF Trainings in English and German
> > >
> > >
> >
>
