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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
