We don't use 2.0 at my company, and I don't use it myself for personal projects, so I'm not too worried
I'm not particularly interested in the constructor change, even if the comparison to SWT being better than Swing was appealing at first glance. Didn't you happen to say: « SWT has a much better design that Swing ». And the parallel to Wicket 1.x/2.0 was easy to draw. But as a committer I am very unhappy with having to maintain 2 branches; most of the classes I change are out of sync between 1.x and trunk. So I'm +1 for having one development branch, JDK 1.4 is fine for me, we'll switch to JDK 1.5 in a few months (or years?). But beware that some bugfixes and useful new features went in trunk only, so we should list them and port them to 1.x, as I [1]already started to do. Also, I think if we get rid of 2.0, we should never reuse that version number to avoid any confusion. -- Jean-Baptiste Quenot aka John Banana Qwerty http://caraldi.com/jbq/ [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/To+Sync+Between+Branches ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user