Hi Juan Pablo, I wasn't aware of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JSPWIKI-719, but I can understand the sentiment. There's always a question of legacy compatibility, and had I been present and a voter on the project I would have been on the more radical side rather than siding the "conservatives", i.e., I believe it's probably time for the default to cause older plugins to fail rather than grandfather them in. This I suppose is the Apple Computer approach rather than the IBM approach.
I'm just of a mind that the more patchwork the code the harder it is to maintain, and having followed the JSPWiki project from very early days I feel it's already overly complex -- waaaay too many options, even for someone like me who likes options. I don't think it's a huge demand on plugin developers to update their code rather than expect JSPWiki to continue to honour the older API, especially since generics were introduced in Java 5 in 2004 -- that's really giving people many more years than necessary. The value of generics and forcing updates to likely outdated code is (IMO) a necessary step. People using pre-2004 plugins should probably stay with the 2.8.x code base anyway, which is completely functional. Murray Altheim and John Volkar both developed a lot of plugins. As I said, I'm now the maintainer of those and am willing to make the changes necessary conform to a <String,Object> API. There may be plugin developers who wouldn't be aware of the com.ecyrd.jspwiki to org.apache.wiki package change, but they'd also be unlikely to even know of the new project under Apache. And if they were it doesn't seem difficult to both provide a warning and force them to make a change that should have occurred in 2004. But I also realise the vote on this one has already passed, so this is the last message I'll send on this subject, unless further conversation is warranted. Ichiro
