Quite frankly I don't see why JSF 1.2 spec requires it. I know they had their reasons but I am doing just fine with JDK 1.4. I like upgrading just as much as the next guy but 1.4 seems sufficient IMO.
sean On 11/4/05, Bill Dudney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > agreed, we can't require java 5 with 1.1 (the spec says 1.4). > > TTFN, > > -bd- > > On Nov 4, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote: > > > There's no choice in regards to JSF 1.2. JSF 1.2 already requires > > Java 1.5. > > However, I'm definitely against JSF 1.1 requiring Java 1.5. > > > > On 11/4/05, Keith Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> This is certainly a large issue. Some products still have to > >> support Java > >> 1.3. > >> > >> 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >
