Re: [DISCUSSION] Java future and Wicket

No, that was just a coincidence. Have fun Sven Am 16.04.2018 um 19:37 schrieb Korbinian Bachl: But wasn't that the hole point of the renaming change from wicket 1.4 / 1.5 to wicket 6, wicket 7, wicket 8? I myself dont give anything about version numbers anyway, just curious -

Re: [DISCUSSION] Wicket 8 Release

+1 fully agreed Sven Am 16. April 2018 16:40:35 MESZ schrieb Martin Grigorov : >Let's release Wicket 8.0.0 first and then start adding/removing >features >for Wicket 9! > > >On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 3:27 PM, Emond Papegaaij >> wrote: > >> I think

Re: [DISCUSSION] Java future and Wicket

But wasn't that the hole point of the renaming change from wicket 1.4 / 1.5 to wicket 6, wicket 7, wicket 8? I myself dont give anything about version numbers anyway, just curious - Ursprüngliche Mail - > Von: "Martin Grigorov" > An: dev@wicket.apache.org >

Re: [DISCUSSION] Wicket 8 Release

Let's release Wicket 8.0.0 first and then start adding/removing features for Wicket 9! On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 3:27 PM, Emond Papegaaij wrote: > I think the issue is related to the very old version of cdi-unit and weld > that > are being used. cdi-1.1 is the

Re: [DISCUSSION] Java future and Wicket

I think we should not relate Wicket version to anything. Wicket 9 will be released when there is enough new features. And the team decides when enough is enough. It should be build with the latest LTS JDK whatever it is at the moment. The version of EE4J / Servlet specs are also not relevant to

Re: [DISCUSSION] Wicket 8 Release

I think the issue is related to the very old version of cdi-unit and weld that are being used. cdi-1.1 is the current implementation. If we want to drop one, wich should drop the wicket-cdi artifact (which is for cdi-1.0). In any case, we can upgrade to cdi-1.2 I guess, but we should also

Re: [DISCUSSION] Java future and Wicket

+1 to stay with LTS and drop deprecated technologies On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Andrea Del Bene wrote: > I think we should stay stick with LTS releases (one main release per year) > and provide support only for that specific LTS. I think this is what most > of the

Re: [DISCUSSION] Java future and Wicket

I think we should stay stick with LTS releases (one main release per year) and provide support only for that specific LTS. I think this is what most of the market will do in the future. As we are seeing with Java 9, it's nearly impossible to adapt Wicket to the "next" Java without cutting

[DISCUSSION] Java future and Wicket

All, With the new release schedule of Java where they will (have) release(d) Java 9, 10 and 11 in one year, what will we do with Wicket's dependency on Java? Will we move with the Long Term Support versions? AFAIK this will require us to upgrade every year to a new major version. Or will we

Re: [DISCUSSION] Wicket 8 Release

It's not an answer to your question, but I've create a sort of "proof-of-concept" for Wicket 9 (branch wicket9 of Apache repo). I've successfully built a 9.0.0-SNAPSHOT version axing module wicket-cdi-1.1 which had the same cast exception reported here for Spring:

Article on Java web frameworks at Infoworld

https://www.infoworld.com/article/3263767/java/15-java-frameworks-that-give-developers-a-boost.html

Re: [DISCUSSION] Wicket 8 Release

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Andrea Del Bene wrote: > I've also tried to build master branch with Java 9 and I've found the > following issues: > > wicket-util: it seems that java 9 has changed date formats to be closer to > the Unicode standard: