We will in the end have Wicket 2.0, as we unofficially 'decided' to call the Java 5 based release that was also called 1.4 in the constructor change revert discussion 2.0. It'll be a little while before we start working on 2.0 again though, as we first want to have all the non-Java 5 features backported from the current 2.0 version (see http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Backporting+features+from+trunk for the TODO list), and once that is done, and we created a first release, we'll be ready to branch again and work on 2.0 with those last Java 5 related goodies.
Regards, Eelco On 3/28/07, David Leangen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > IIUC, the Wicket guys have decided to revert the constructor change. > > So... I go back to my original question: is it now "safe" to migrate > to pax-wicket 2.0? > > (Or will you call that pax-wicket 1.4 to match the Wicket version??) > > > Cheers, > Dave > > > > On Mar 9, 2007, at 2:22, Eelco Hillenius wrote: > > > As a final note, the constructor change is the *only* functional thing > > that is under discussion. Everything else from 2.0 either already has > > been backported, or will be backported soon if we would go on with > > this. > > > > Eelco > > > > > > On 3/8/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> Mmmh, > >>>> right now there is a big discussion going on over at Wicket, > >>>> they seem > >>>> to be unsure what and whether to go Wicket 2.0 at all and if they > >>>> should revert the contructor change. > >>>> > >>>> IMHO, we should postpone any further steps until that has settled. > >>> > >>> What?? There is a book half way written that assumes constructor > >>> injection of > >>> parents. > >> > >> We're still in the middle of the discussion on Wicket-user (please > >> chip in!), but we seem to almost have reached consensus that, while > >> there are some advantages to the constructor change, there are also > >> some large disadvantages. > >> > >> Also, we are alarmed by the number of people who told us they left > >> Tapestry because of the large shifts in 'how to do things' with each > >> release. They are increasingly warning us not to do the same with > >> Wicket. > >> > >> And last but not lost, we feel like we're walking kneedeep in mud > >> having to maintain branches that are quite different from each other. > >> It may be too early for that, especially considering that most of > >> Wicket's developers are using 1.3 for their projects themselves. > >> Notable exception is Igor, who proposed the constructor refactor and > >> did two projects with it and who now is the one who started having > >> second thoughts about the whole thing. > >> > >> Please do chip in in the discussion: > >> http://www.nabble.com/IMPORTANT%3A-your-opinion-on-the-constructor- > >> change-in-2.0-tf3358738.html > >> > >> We're very sorry if it turns out people wasted time on this. I feel > >> pretty bad about it myself, and in fact if 2.0 goes, there's quite a > >> big effort going down the toilet for your's truly. Including Martijn > >> and me having to rewrite the code samples of Wicket In Action. > >> Anyway, > >> we feel we should have this discussion now before it is really to > >> late. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Eelco > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > general mailing list > > general@lists.ops4j.org > > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general > > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > general@lists.ops4j.org > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general > _______________________________________________ general mailing list general@lists.ops4j.org http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
