so recently they moved to 5? at a time that 6 is already almost 3 years there? how stupid is that?
Why if you move you move to something that is already a dinosaur ? On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 13:03, Carl-Eric Menzel < cm.wic...@users.bitforce.com> wrote: > > I only know about our customers, who are mostly medium to large > financial corporations. Very conservative. There's not one among them > who is running on 1.6 yet. As I said, some have only very recently > managed to move up to 1.5. We are finally getting some of them to use > Wicket. If you now add a hard dependency on Java 1.6, that will make > things rather difficult in this space. > > Do you really need it for anything in core? I know that running on 1.6 > is nice performance-wise, but that is not a good reason to ditch > runtime compatibility. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to use 1.6 as well. > But I really think that it should stay out of the core for quite some > time still. > > Carl-Eric > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:39:47 +0100 > Martijn Dashorst <martijn.dasho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think that Java 6 adoption was much faster than 1.5 adoption. > > Compatibility is pretty good, but you get an immediate 30% performance > > gain. > > > > Martijn > > > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Carl-Eric Menzel > > <cm.wic...@users.bitforce.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 > > > Martijn Dashorst <martijn.dasho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> I was going to propose a vote in that direction... as JDK 1.5 has > > >> been shelved... > > >> > > > > > > It'll be years until Java 1.6 is as common as 1.5 is now. There are > > > many organizations who have only just completed the move to 1.5. I > > > think going to a strict requirement for Java 1.6 would be a really > > > bad idea, especially since it does not offer as many significant > > > new benefits as 1.5 did. > > > > > > Offering 1.6-specific features in a separate jar would be a simple > > > and pretty good solution, I think. Stuff like the typesafe model > > > would thus be available for those who need it, without leaving > > > anybody needlessly stranded. > > > > > > Carl-Eric > > > > > > > > > >
