-1 to JDK 1.6 The possibility of excluding even 1% of potential users for the negligible benefit of using 1.6-specific features would be a bad decision. 1.5 is simply the right jdk to be developing frameworks in for now.
Pro 1.6 crowd: Understand that the argument is not that anybody's organization *should* stay with JDK 1.5, but that some organizations *will* stay at 1.5 regardless of whether you think they should be up to date. If the jump from 1.5 to 1.6 was as big as the jump from 1.4 to 1.5, I would be firmly in the pro-1.6 camp, but the benefits just aren't worth the costs. On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Vit Rozkovec <rozkovec...@email.cz> wrote: > + 1 to move on. > > Just that it is the way it is does not mean it has to be the way it is. > > Vitek > > > >> I don't like it either but thats just the way it is in the enterprise >> business ;-( >> >> --- Original Nachricht --- >> Absender: Johan Compagner >> Datum: 15.12.2009 12:42 >> >> >>> i cant believe that..java 6 is already out for years.. they are already >>> at >>> update 17.. >>> java 5 was sep 2004! >>> java 6 dec 2006 >>> >>> thats already 3 years ago.. >>> >>> I cant beleive that there are many still on java 5 they really should >>> upgrade because java 6 didnt maybe bring much api wise >>> but performance wise it was quite a good jump. >>> >>> Besides that when wicket 1.5 will be released we will be i guess at least >>> half next year >>> then java 7 is almost there. (i think... java 7 is just a bit question >>> mark) >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:36, Carl-Eric Menzel < >>> cm.wic...@users.bitforce.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 >>>> Martijn Dashorst <martijn.dasho...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I was going to propose a vote in that direction... as JDK 1.5 has been >>>>> shelved... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> It'll be years until Java 1.6 is as common as 1.5 is now. There are many >>>> organizations who have only just completed the move to 1.5. I think >>>> going to a strict requirement for Java 1.6 would be a really bad idea, >>>> especially since it does not offer as many significant new benefits as >>>> 1.5 did. >>>> >>>> Offering 1.6-specific features in a separate jar would be a simple and >>>> pretty good solution, I think. Stuff like the typesafe model would thus >>>> be available for those who need it, without leaving anybody needlessly >>>> stranded. >>>> >>>> Carl-Eric >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > >
