Using 3.0 in a module might prove to be quite difficult. The main problem is that they changed the artifactId from servlet-api to javax.servlet-api. This makes it impossible to simple set a dependency management, you need to exclude the dependencies on servlet 2.5. But even if you manage to do this in maven, Eclipse still screws up your classpath and you will end up with duplicate classes.
Personally I dont see why a framework released in 2012 still needs to support servlet containers versions of over 5 years old. If you are able to upgrade Wicket, you should also be able to upgrade other parts of your deployment. IMHO Wicket should move forward with the rest of the world. Best regards, Emond On Friday 13 April 2012 16:23:16 Martin Grigorov wrote: > I am -1 to require Servlet 3.0 for -core. > Currently Wicket core doesn't even need anything from 2.5. 2.4 covers > all our needs. > Requiring Servlet 3.0 for Wicket 6 will leave some users at > 1.4.x/1.5.x and we all can agree there is no much man power in > supporting old branches at the moment. > > Anyone ever tried doing anything with AsyncContext within a Wicket Page ? > I see some benefit in IResource but creating custom IResource for that > doesn't require -core to depend on 3.0. > > My 2c > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Peter Ertl <pe...@gmx.org> wrote: > > +1 atmosphere alone is reason enough, no reason to stay on < 3.0 forever > > and there are enough servers out there supporting it> > > Am 13.04.2012 um 14:32 schrieb Emond Papegaaij: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> It was already mentioned by Martijn some time ago as a suggestion for the > >> roadmap for Wicket 6, but it was never decided. The question is: should > >> we > >> move to servlet-api 3.0 or stay at 2.5. Servlet 3.0 has been around for > >> over 2 years now and is supported by most (all?) servlet containers. It > >> allows us to use things like the new annotations and asynchronous > >> servlets. > >> > >> I'm +1 for moving to servlet 3.0 and already have some work done on the > >> sandbox/atmosphere branch to get it working. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Emond
