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

Reply via email to