I second that: +1 on separate releases for constructor change and Java 5 support.
Personally I wouldn't mind if you guys pulled up the constructor change into 1.2 - IMHO this is most important and we should get over it as soon as possible. Then version 2.0 could concentrate on Java 5 - while still being very similar to 1.2. Sorry if I'm opening a can of worms with this post, I'm sure you would prefer to get an unambiguous 1. or 2. or 3. vote. Sven > >>2. Do the constructor change in a seperate release (Wicket 1.3) and >>put Java 5 in the next (Wicket 2.0) >> >The constructor change is a major change. Would you rather support an >old and different version (1.2), or an old version that is much closer >in a major way to the 'current' version? > >I vote for 1.3 & 2.0, the only difference being Java 5.0 support. > > - Jason B. > > >------------------------------------------------------- >This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files >for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes >searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! >http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 >_______________________________________________ >Wicket-user mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
