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
