Because it makes things more complicated. We've got enough on our
plate now. At some point when J2SE 5.0 becomes the standard we will
switch to it.
sean
On 9/7/05, Nadeem Bitar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not have a separate module for jdk 5.0 stuff? The Spring framework
and acegi security
-Original Message-
Because it makes things more complicated. We've got enough on our
plate now. At some point when J2SE 5.0 becomes the standard we will
switch to it.
-/Original Message-
the question is WHEN is a new JDK standard?
I know enterprises (and some of them big
IMO the standard is JDK 1.4. Companies that are stil running on JDK
1.1 are definitely lagging behind the standard (although there is no
real problem with that.)
sean
On 9/7/05, Jesse Alexander (KBSA 21) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
Because it makes things more
I think once JSF 1.2 is on the table, the swtich to 5.0 will be enforced
Sun to my knowledge has switched in 1.2 for the RI...
Werner
Jesse Alexander (KBSA 21) wrote:
-Original Message-
Because it makes things more complicated. We've got enough on our
plate now. At some point when
I seem to recall that as well ... I know its in some new spec I was
reading. Couldn't remember if it was JSF 1.2 or not ...
sean
On 9/7/05, Werner Punz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think once JSF 1.2 is on the table, the swtich to 5.0 will be enforced
Sun to my knowledge has switched in 1.2 for
I think that JSF 1.2 will be included in J2EE 5.0, which will be built
on JDK 5.0...
Bruno
2005/9/7, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I seem to recall that as well ... I know its in some new spec I was
reading. Couldn't remember if it was JSF 1.2 or not ...
sean
On 9/7/05, Werner Punz
You're probably thinking of the message I forwarded to the myfaces dev
list earlier about JSF 1.2 requiring 5.0
-- Forwarded message --
From: Ed Burns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Aug 15, 2005 12:20 PM
Subject: [NOTICE] Need Java SE 5.0 to build JSF now
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
Yup that's the one.
sean
On 9/7/05, Mike Kienenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're probably thinking of the message I forwarded to the myfaces dev
list earlier about JSF 1.2 requiring 5.0
-- Forwarded message --
From: Ed Burns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Aug 15, 2005 12:20
Just a note. JDK1.5 is able to produce 1.4 classes. We could change
the build process to let the user choose which target he needs and
still provide 1.4 classes (or both) in the releases. But let us bring
the next release out before going that way.
2005/9/7, Ed Burns [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed,
Mathias Brökelmann wrote:
Just a note. JDK1.5 is able to produce 1.4 classes. We could change
the build process to let the user choose which target he needs and
still provide 1.4 classes (or both) in the releases. But let us bring
the next release out before going that way.
Maintenance
Hello,
I was about to commit the few Maps util classes I have when I realized it's all Java 5 code (with many generics and a few annotations).
Removing the generics would really be bad as those classes needs to be extended, and the generics add a lot of safety.
For me it would be ok to add
IMO that's a bad idea. Why would you add it with JSE 5 to the sandbox
but chance it to 1.4 when moving to tomahawk? What would be the point
of that?
Why not refactor before adding to sandbox if this is the eventual plan?
I'm not sure how I feel about requiring JSE 5 (I don't use it myself)
but
I didn't mean to include it in the sandbox and hope to refactor it later.
I meant to add it to the sandbox, and to move it to tomahawk only when we accept JSE5 code in tomahawk (which is required for JSF 1.2 if I'm not wrong).
The point is that be refactoring those classes, we lose a lot of
yes, ok, let's wait!
JDK 1.5 in the sandbox right now is not a good idea, I think.
regards,
Martin
On 9/7/05, Sylvain Vieujot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well doing a branch for the few classes I have right now really isn't worth
it.
Maybe it's better to hold on this until we start JSF
14 matches
Mail list logo
