On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Kalle Korhonen <kalle.o.korho...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sounds like we should back out the hibernate version change then. We > might need to create a separate java 6 version of tapestry-hibernate > (we could use classifiers to separate the artifacts at least for > Maven), can I assume you'll sign up to work on it?
I apologize, I mean a separate tapestry-hibernate4 artifact and we shouldn't use classifiers for differentiation. Kalle > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Ulrich Stärk <u...@spielviel.de> wrote: >> Why is everybody mixing up JDK version and bytecode versions? True, JDK 5 >> isn't officially supported >> anymore and 6 won't be supported soon. I know of companies though that have >> separate contracts with >> Sun/Oracle that ensure support beyond the regular JDK life. But that has >> nothing to do with the >> bytecode version. Even with JDK 7 you can emit bytecode with bytecode >> version 49 which is Java 5 >> compatible and will run on any JRE >= Java 5. >> >> As long as there are no language features of Java 6 or 7 that we want to use >> or some other >> enhancements we would otherwise miss, I'm against removing Java 5 >> compatibility. There simply is >> nothing to be gained, only to be lost. If people are forced to use Java 6 >> because Hibernate is >> compiled to output bytecode version 50 so be it. Tapestry compiled with Java >> 5 compatibility will >> still run just fine. >> >> Uli >> >> On 02.05.2012 19:05, Kalle Korhonen wrote: >>> I think that's a pretty reasonable argument for just moving to 1.6 and >>> be done with it. How many of those that are stuck with Java 5 would >>> actually ever upgrade to the latest (and at the moment, still >>> unreleased) versions of Tapestry? Now that must be a very low number. >>> If you were that progressive that you'd use T5.3, there's still plenty >>> of lifespan left in that branch. Everybody starting with Tapestry now >>> would almost certainly be on 1.6 or 1.7. >>> >>> Kalle >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:32 AM, trsvax <trs...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I voted +1 even though I have a workstation that is stuck on a particular >>>> Java major/minor version because I have a dependency on some mainframe Java >>>> browser plugin that only works on one specific Java release. >>>> >>>> I would say there is no reason to encourage this behavior and I suspect the >>>> number of people stuck on Java 1.5 that are interested in trying Tapestry >>>> is >>>> a low number (perhaps 0). For those stuck on 1.5 that would like to upgrade >>>> (and I'm one of them) life is tough but I'd prefer not to be the one >>>> holding >>>> things back. >>>> >>>> In my case I develop on 1.5 but my build machine has 1.6 and I deploy on >>>> 1.6. If I have to choose between mainframe access and upgrading I'll >>>> probably pick upgrading. >>>> >>>> Just my 2 cents. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> View this message in context: >>>> http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Build-failed-in-Jenkins-tapestry-5-3-freestyle-22-tp5637030p5681043.html >>>> Sent from the Tapestry - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tapestry.apache.org >>>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tapestry.apache.org >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tapestry.apache.org >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tapestry.apache.org
