If someone (Frank?) is up to helping me a bit this weekend, how about
putting our beta 5 this weekend. The reason is selfish: we
(Teachscape) are gonna do a big release this weekend, I just fixed an
issue I need, and I also would like to use the memory improvements,
but I don't want to fix
i think there are no really major showstoppers at the moment. (as far as i
know)
And whats the difference for you if you just take beta5 now and use that in
your production
or if we already called that final? It will be the same kind of code.
There isn't anything different then the label we give
On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i think there are no really major showstoppers at the moment. (as far as i
know)
And whats the difference for you if you just take beta5 now and use that in
your production
or if we already called that final? It will be the same kind of
But api breaking or not that still doesn't mean anything because if they
use the label beta5 now and they use that now in production and it works
perfect for them
then that label doesnt say anything.
But i agree if they need a fix then the drop in beta6 or RC or final could
maybe not work.
but i
Sorry for joining in so late. I don't have any time this weekend to do a
release. I have time next weekend (3-4. nov.)
Frank
On 10/20/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey,
If someone (Frank?) is up to helping me a bit this weekend, how about
putting our beta 5 this weekend
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 11:13 +0200, Johan Compagner wrote:
but i am already in a none api break mode at this time
I still hope that all the refactoring we have done in 1.3 will result in a
much stabler api from now on
For example i don't see the major interfaces like all the model
: Re: beta 5 this weekend?
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 11:13 +0200, Johan Compagner wrote:
but i am already in a none api break mode at this time I still hope
that all the refactoring we have done in 1.3 will result in a much
stabler api from now on For example i don't see the major interfaces
like
I suspect that he meant to say: the API is stable for 1.3. We still
stick to supplying JDK 1.5 model implementations that sport generics.
I haven't heard anything to the contrary.
Generics support should become available on trunk after 1.3.1/1.3.2.
Usually we create a separate branch for a stable
for me generics is not an api change.
do you think that there was an api change in the jdk collection classes when
they applied generices?
the old code will still compile fine with the new generified api
johan
On 10/22/07, Philip A. Chapman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at
no i meant what i did say, i think the api change for 1.4 will not be that
much changed
as 1.2 - 1.3 (converters,validators,models all those are changed, i don't
think that will happen any time soon again)
and as i said generifying api is not an api change.
johan
On 10/22/07, Martijn Dashorst
correct me if im wrong, but the plan was (and still is?) for 1.4 to
ONLY have the generics applied...
-igor
On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no i meant what i did say, i think the api change for 1.4 will not be that
much changed
as 1.2 - 1.3 (converters,validators,models
that
documentation myself, but unfortunately, I don't. Even Matej's workaround
that I linked to above doesn't make complete sense to me. I think I
understand the general goal, but not technically how to achieve it.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/beta-5-this-weekend--tf4657032
On 10/22/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
correct me if im wrong, but the plan was (and still is?) for 1.4 to
ONLY have the generics applied...
Yes. 1.4 is for the last missing JDK 5 related features of 2.0.
Eelco
well, the idea is that we dont release it until after 1.3.2 by which
time there shouldnt be very many bugs left in 1.3
-igor
On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yeah right.
so if i do that in 1 weekend then we release 1.4?
i don't think so. i am not going to maintain then
to achieve it.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/beta-5-this-weekend--tf4657032.html#a13349276
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
i only see 1 problem arise if we quickly release the 1.4 version
then we have this:
people still on 1.2.x (there are still bug reports coming in)
people on 1.3
people on 1.4
and we have then branch for 2.0?
and i have to see if we can finalize 1.3 with one (or 2) release(s)
Of course just
through wicket?
and replace the ids at that time?
What do you mean by parsing the Javascript through Wicket? Perhaps it's
that
step that I'm missing and why Matej's explanation went a bit over my head.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/beta-5-this-weekend--tf4657032
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 18:27 +0200, Johan Compagner wrote:
for me generics is not an api change.
do you think that there was an api change in the jdk collection classes when
they applied generices?
I've always thought of adding generics as an api change. Sure, it's one
that doesn't break
On 22 Oct 2007, at 15:16, Philip A. Chapman wrote
I've always thought of adding generics as an api change. Sure,
it's one
that doesn't break backward compatibility, but it's a change non the
MetaDataKey(Class) - MetaDataKeyT
would count as an API change? Because the keys are always
yes thats the exception. But still T is not really a substitute for the
Class object
Because if you just ignore generics then you can do what ever you want
and currently you will get an exception..
But i guess it cleans up the api so that will be a break if nobody objects.,
johan
On 10/22/07,
On 22 Oct 2007, at 15:55, Johan Compagner wrote:
yes thats the exception. But still T is not really a substitute
for the
Class object
Because if you just ignore generics then you can do what ever you want
and currently you will get an exception..
But i guess it cleans up the api so that
but then you choose for it (you really have to make a choice what kind of
object you put in it)
thats not the case if it wasn't there.
Also we could make it so that it was really 1 way of doing so
object.getClass() == getClass()
then even that wouldn't work. But that just annoys i guess.
johan
On 22 Oct 2007, at 16:18, Johan Compagner wrote:
but then you choose for it (you really have to make a choice what
kind of
object you put in it)
thats not the case if it wasn't there.
Also we could make it so that it was really 1 way of doing so
object.getClass() == getClass()
then even
fine by me. i dont mind a release every one or two weeks.
-igor
On 10/19/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey,
If someone (Frank?) is up to helping me a bit this weekend, how about
putting our beta 5 this weekend. The reason is selfish: we
(Teachscape) are gonna do a big
about
putting our beta 5 this weekend. The reason is selfish: we
(Teachscape) are gonna do a big release this weekend, I just fixed an
issue I need, and I also would like to use the memory improvements,
but I don't want to fix on a SNAPSHOT. But it's also a practice round
to see whether we can
+1 if frank or martijn can spend the time on this
please release.
On 10/20/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey,
If someone (Frank?) is up to helping me a bit this weekend, how about
putting our beta 5 this weekend. The reason is selfish: we
(Teachscape) are gonna do a big
?) is up to helping me a bit this weekend, how about
putting our beta 5 this weekend. The reason is selfish: we
(Teachscape) are gonna do a big release this weekend, I just fixed an
issue I need, and I also would like to use the memory improvements,
but I don't want to fix on a SNAPSHOT
On 10/20/07, dtoffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not about specific bugs, it's this little beta4 that my boss
don't like. Stable as in no new features or breaking changes is enough,
and as some less important bugs are found, some bugfix could be released
as
1.3.01 for example.
thank
i am already in ff mode. except optimalisations like we did this few
days. optimisations should always be right after major changes and
freezzz
On 10/20/07, Gerolf Seitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/20/07, dtoffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not about specific bugs, it's this little
alright, then we should somehow make it official.
also to communicate to potential users that the final release is getting
closer.
anyway, what do the others think? (weekends are a bad time to have a lively
discussion ;) )
Gerolf
On 10/20/07, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i am
i am not aware of any show-stopping bugs, so i am ok if the next
release is an RC1.
-igor
On 10/20/07, Gerolf Seitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
alright, then we should somehow make it official.
also to communicate to potential users that the final release is getting
closer.
anyway, what do
FWIW, i'd love to start seeing RCs. We're shooting for a late november
release and I'd *really* like to see something final soon. It makes me a
little nervous to be still in beta at this point in our release cycle. I'm
not complaining, really. I know you guys are busy and are working on this
32 matches
Mail list logo
