Interesting comment. I do think that it will take some time until JSF1.2 is on our table, right.
I still think that we can implement almost everything that JSF1.2 specifies in MyFaces right away, and even pass the TCK 1.1 this way - spec people have paid much attention to backwards compatibility. With the exception of the new unified EL of course. regards, Martin On 11/5/05, Heinz Drews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I personally would give a f...airly low amount of interest what JSF > 1.2 requires. > My revenue is generated from existing customers and not the ones from > 2007 or later. > And as I said, they are mostly WebSphere-based where not even a > roadmap for the use of Java 5 exists. In another case the customer > uses WebLogic and has a migration plan to get Java 5 ready mid 2006. > Not even the Geronimo-Project can move to Java 5 now because there is > no usable CORBA-implementation available. > > It might be necessary to tell the specimaniacs to consider the market > situation. > I don't know a good english term for the german clause which literally > translates to "breadless art". It's nice to have just beauty but > someone has to pay for it. > > If anyhow possible I'm using Retroweaver to get a lot of the Java 5 > benefits without losing the 1.4.x compatibility. > > Regards, > Heinz > > On 11/4/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Quite frankly I don't see why JSF 1.2 spec requires it. I know they > > had their reasons but I am doing just fine with JDK 1.4. I like > > upgrading just as much as the next guy but 1.4 seems sufficient IMO. > > > > sean > > > > On 11/4/05, Bill Dudney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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 > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Trainings in English and German
