Nothing about javascript? paul
Le 4 févr. 2012 à 00:49, Sergiu Dumitriu a écrit : > Hi devs, > > I'd like to have an early decision on what (bigger) dependencies should be > upgraded in the next release cycle. > > A) HTML 5. Already proposed by Jerome. This is something that has a > continuous aspect, since "switching to HTML5" can be something as simple as > writing a smaller DOCTYPE, or can go to rewriting the entire templates and > rendering engine. We'll start small and improve things as we go. > > B) Hibernate 4. Will require some code changes since we're using a few > deprecated APIs that have been removed in 4.0. > > C) Struts 2. We could move away from Struts completely at some point, but > until we have the time to implement our own action mechanism, a good step > forward is upgrading to a newer version of Struts. > > D) Velocity Tools 2. I'm not quite happy with how version 2.0 is packaged, > since it brings in a dependency on Struts 2, but 2.1 isn't planned yet. > Alternatively, we could package our own subset of velotools, since we're only > using the generic tools, not VelocityView or VelocityStruts. > > E) Servlets 3.0. Since we're using Java 1.6, we could also require a > servlet-3.0 capable container. This will give us more flexibility in defining > servlets and filters, since the 2.4 versions we're using now requires a > central web.xml file. The problem is that only the most recent versions of > the popular servlet containers are compatible: Jetty 8, Tomcat 7, Glassfish > 3, WebSphere 8, WebLogic 12. Oracle Application Server doesn't provide a > version compatible with servlets 3.0, but this server is discontinued anyway. > This means that users on older Linux server versions will have to install > Tomcat 7 manually. > > F) Jetty 8. This is required for Servlets 3.0, but it would be a good upgrade > on its own. > > G) HSQLDB 2. Better for performance. > > H) Lucene 3.5, Tika 1.0. Upgrading Lucene shouldn't be a problem, but an > early attempt at using Tika 1.0 didn't work, it would require some time to > debug it. > > I). Sass, Less or something like that. Personally I'm against this, since > we're already providing support for most of their benefits by including > Velocity code in CSS files. Does anybody else consider that we should include > a CSS framework? > > J) Joda Time 2 and Quartz 2, and maybe freshen up the plugins that use them. > > WDYT? > -- > Sergiu Dumitriu > http://purl.org/net/sergiu/ > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
