bleh, this is turning into another prolonged discussion.... why dont we just do this...release 1.5 and call it a day. weld can come in as a 1.5.1 or 1.5.2 addition - it doesnt touch any core code. osgi can wait for 1.6 where it can be implemented properly.
i am changing my vote to -1 to include weld and -1 to include osgi. they all came in too late for 1.5 and i think i would rather push it out and worry about these things later. martin, revert the pom change you made for the osgi issue and i will build rc6 tomorrow. i think it has a good chance to become 1.5.0. -igor On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Brian Topping <[email protected]> wrote: > News flash: > > If you're going to include OSGi, go ahead and add Weld. They are equally > important. Maybe not to you, but to some of us. > > Wicket 1.5 is not release candidate. Features do not get added to release > candidates. Features do not even get added to alpha versions. Read the > Release Lifecycle 101 at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle. > > If Wicket is not RC, then the features Wicket needs to be a viable release > should be added. OSGi is one of them, regardless of whether it's one of your > personal favorites or not (and your opinions are pretty clear in the public > record). > > I pushed for OSGi in 1.5 knowing full well that the RC moniker was a charade > and that I am just as uneasy of waiting for it as you guys appear to be > uneasy of waiting for Weld integration. > > If 1.5 is released, the next opportunity to add features that would cause the > modules to be restructured is 1.6, not 1.5.1. > > The reality is the RC fantasy should be aborted and the cycle set back to > "development mode" so features like Weld can be added and the *proper* work > done to add OSGi -- both with necessary module restructurings. > > Then when that is done, freeze features and start fixing bugs. That's called > "alpha". Etc etc. > > I'll be clear, I think the Apache process has failed on Wicket and if > preferential treatment is given to Weld without proper OSGi support also > going in, it's going to be an unmitigated disaster that is worthy of a review > by the Apache board. It may be worthy of a review in any event. > > Back to the regularly scheduled programming.... > > On Aug 22, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote: > >> Wicket Weld is a really nice to have for wicket 1.5 and would increase >> the importance of our release pretty considerably. The issue with >> wicket-weld is that it requires java 6, and it is late in the release >> game for 1.5 final. >> >> We have experience with building mixed java releases (see our 1.3 >> history), though the build process was not pretty. >> >> In order to enable wicket-weld we need to do the following IMO: >> - create java5 and java6 modules in trunk, each configured with the >> correct java version >> - commit wicket-weld as a submodule for the java 6 module >> - move wicket-examples to java 6 module >> - move all other wicket modules to the java 5 module >> - fix the wicket parent pom to have a java 5 profile and a java 6 profile >> - fix the build script to run different maven setups utilizing a java >> 5 home directory and a java 6 home directory >> - fix the build script to run java 5 compilation first and then only >> java 6 for packaging (without clean) this will keep the java 5 >> compiled classes and re-package them during the java 6 run >> >> This is some work, and as I said, we are late in the release game. If >> 1.5 final was this week I wouldn't propose to do this, but perhaps do >> it in 1.5.1 or 1.5.2. However, since 1.5-rc6 is still not complete we >> might do this now. I'm open to suggestions on whether to include >> wicket-weld or not. >> >> Martijn >> >> -- >> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com >> > >
