If the code doesn't require it, why add it artificially? Is there any planned feature that may potentially require it?
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Martijn Dashorst <[email protected]> wrote: > http://s.apache.org/wicket-servlet3-discuss > > It has been proposed a couple of times for the roadmap for 6. There is > no confusion between Emond and myself (at least for servlet 3, I won't > comment on any confusion on other topics :-)). We both think that > servlet 3 is out long enough and supported widely enough to move on > (or he has changed his opinion since last I've seen him). > > Martijn > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Requiring Servlet 3.x as minimum version has never been in the scope >> of Wicket 6. It is neither in the roadmap page nor there was any mail >> discussion about this. >> I think this is some confusion in/between you and Emond. He also >> mentioned this few months ago in IRC. >> >> I see no reason to require Servlet 3.0 at this moment. Atmosphere >> doesn't need it. >> >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Martijn Dashorst >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> All, >>> >>> As I was preparing to build a final, I noticed that we don't yet have >>> moved to servlet 3 in master. I thought that for the web socket stuff >>> we needed to at least move to 3.0. I do see a commit in the history >>> that adds servlet 3 done by Emond. I also see a commit reverting Jetty >>> from jetty 8 to jetty 7 as jetty 8 requires servlet 3, also done by >>> Emond. >>> >>> I wonder what the status is of our servlet 3 handling, is it still on >>> the map for 6? We can't upgrade to 3 in 6.x after 6.0, so I'd rather >>> move now than later. >>> >>> Martijn >>> >>> -- >>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com >> >> >> >> -- >> Martin Grigorov >> jWeekend >> Training, Consulting, Development >> http://jWeekend.com > > > > -- > Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
