Is the voting officially closed ? :)
and does that mean 'constructor and JDK5' will come packaged as one release
wicket 2.0?
On 2/21/06, Al Maw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandru Popescu wrote:
I know that this might be early considering the lenght of the thread,
but what is the voting
The vote isn't officially closed. We didn't set a time limit at beforehand. It is probably dead though :)In this case, the vote was NON-binding. That basically means that the core team can do whatever we want, ignoring everything and build Wicket 2 on dolphin (Java 7). Surpise!
We haven't started
and we could interpreted the results this way that there are still quite a number of persons that can't use 1.5 yet.So it is not a pure democratic vote but just the get a feeling how many people would be really set backed by directly
1.5I still believe that you can live without it, but you can't
and yeah more expected to come in :)
On 2/22/06, karthik Guru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok for the benefit of others, the summary of vote that actually matters - .
Igor - 1
Johan - 2
Eelco - 1
So ,
2 votes for both at once (constructor and JDK5)
1 vote for split releases
--
--
I agree with Johan here. I want to start discussing it on the admin
list shortly. But it looks like there are enough for 2 - not the
majority, but enough - to make seperate releases. We should decide on
whether 1.2. (we might call that version differently actually, but
that's another question) or
are an unusually severe break in
the API.
/Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eelco
Hillenius
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 10:15 AM
To: wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: Results so far (was Re: [Wicket-user] VOTE)
I agree
assuming that the constructor changes are an unusually severe break in
the API.
It's a severe break indeed. BUT to the upside, with a very easy fix.
It's just big because it'll break most of your code instead of just a
few areas.
Eelco
---
an easy fix in /most/ cases. there will be situations that are harder to fix then others.-IgorOn 2/22/06, Eelco Hillenius
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: assuming that the constructor changes are an unusually severe break in
the API.It's a severe break indeed. BUT to the upside, with a very easy
Which ones? Do we have a list?
Eelco
On 2/22/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
an easy fix in /most/ cases. there will be situations that are harder to fix
then others.
-Igor
On 2/22/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
assuming that the constructor changes are an
i havent thought about it /that/ much. but for example if you have a factory, the factory will need to be refactored.also situations where you are creating components but not yet adding them to the parent will have to be refactored to work differently. although i think this is an edge case.
It's not about not wanting to go for Java 1.5. But more a I can't or
my company can't. I have no choice here.
On 2/21/06, Christian Hvid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am one for a move to Java 5 as fast as possible.
From my perspective Wicket is a young framework and if we are
adventurously
Alexandru Popescu wrote:
I know that this might be early considering the lenght of the thread,
but what is the voting result? :-).
So far I count:
40 votes for both at once (constructor and JDK5)
17 votes for split releases (16 plus me, I'm voting now. :-) )
Al
I am one for a move to Java 5 as fast as possible.
From my perspective Wicket is a young framework and if we are
adventurously enough to choose Wicket, we are adventurously enough to
be on Java 5.
On 21 Feb 2006, at 00:27, Al Maw wrote:
Alexandru Popescu wrote:
I know that this might be
13 matches
Mail list logo
