I vote for option 1. On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 17:33 -0800, Eelco Hillenius wrote: > Hi all, > > This is a non-binding (the developers ultimately decide) call votes > concerning whether we should fold the upcomming constructor changes > with our move to Java 5 or not. See for a discussion of those changes > other threads, please use this thread for voting only. > > 1. Give me the constructor change and the Java 5 functionality in one > pass (Wicket 2.0) > 2. Do the constructor change in a seperate release (Wicket 1.3) and > put Java 5 in the next (Wicket 2.0) > 3. I don't want either one and I want to stay on Wicket 1.2. > > This last option has no real effect except that you explicitly say > that you prefer a long lasting support on 1.2 over new features. > > Also, take into consideration that the less versions we have to > maintain seperately, the quicker we probably can implement them. > > Your votes please? > > Btw, it is still our plan to be up-to-date with Wicket In Action. > > Eelco > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > 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_______________________________________________ > Wicket-user mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user -- Philip A. Chapman
Application Development: Java, Visual Basic (MCP), PostgreSQL, MySQL, MSSQL Linux, Windows 9x, Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
