myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Heinz Drews <heinz.dr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: JDK 1.5, JSP 2.0 XML
Date Sat, 05 Nov 2005 06:55:00 GMT
I personally would give a f...airly low amount of interest what JSF
1.2 requires.
My revenue is generated from existing customers and not the ones from
2007 or later.
And as I said, they are mostly WebSphere-based where not even a
roadmap for the use of Java 5 exists.  In another case the customer
uses WebLogic and has a migration plan to get Java 5 ready mid 2006.
Not even the Geronimo-Project can move to Java 5 now because there is
no usable CORBA-implementation available.

It might be necessary to tell the specimaniacs to consider the market situation.
I don't know a good english term for the german clause which literally
translates to "breadless art".  It's nice to have just beauty but
someone has to pay for it.

If anyhow possible I'm using Retroweaver to get a lot of the Java 5
benefits without losing the 1.4.x compatibility.

Regards,
Heinz

On 11/4/05, Sean Schofield <sean.schofield@gmail.com> wrote:
> Quite frankly I don't see why JSF 1.2 spec requires it.  I know they
> had their reasons but I am doing just fine with JDK 1.4.  I like
> upgrading just as much as the next guy but 1.4 seems sufficient IMO.
>
> sean
>
> On 11/4/05, Bill Dudney <bdudney@mac.com> wrote:
> > agreed, we can't require java 5 with 1.1 (the spec says 1.4).
> >
> > TTFN,
> >
> > -bd-
> >
> > On Nov 4, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
> >
> > > There's no choice in regards to JSF 1.2.  JSF 1.2 already requires
> > > Java 1.5.
> > > However, I'm definitely against JSF 1.1 requiring Java 1.5.
> > >
> > > On 11/4/05, Keith Lynch <revelate@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> This is certainly a large issue. Some products still have to
> > >> support Java
> > >> 1.3.
> > >>
> > >> At ILOG I had major issues when trying to move from RI to MyFaces
> > >> as it
> > >> involved a move to 1.4. Thankfully after almost six months I got
> > >> approval
> > >> but it was a pain. There are no moves being made because, just a
> > >> Heinz
> > >> mentioned, some large customers are still using Application
> > >> Servers which
> > >> are limiting. In some cases even as low as Java 1.3. So moving to
> > >> 1.5 would
> > >> be a nightmare for now. I think that even doing this with the 1.2
> > >> release
> > >> would be unwise.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 11/3/05, Thomas Spiegl <thomas.spiegl@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> -1 as well
> > >>>
> > >>> On 11/2/05, Sean Schofield <sean.schofield@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>> -1 for Java 5.0 (for the time being.)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> sean
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 11/2/05, Heinz Drews < heinz.drews@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> I just want to remind that there are still a significant number
of
> > >>>>> sites which cannot move to Java 5 because of restrictions
> > >>>>> implied by
> > >>>>> the Application Server used.
> > >>>>> WebSphere would be here candidate number 1 to be named but
I
> > >>>>> know also
> > >>>>> a large number of WebLogic sites which cannot migrate to versions
> > >>>>> supporting Java 5.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> As long the use of  Java 5 features would be compensated by
using
> > >>>>> Retroweaver to produce jars working in 1.4.x runtimes I would
be
> > >>>>> happy.  If support for the 1.4.x environments would be stopped
I
> > >>>>> foresee some conflicts.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Using Retroweaver is no ideal solution, it would require to
> > >>>>> provide
> > >>>>> two parallel jar-structures.
> > >>>>> But it's better than leaving a lot of sites without a top-level
> > >>>>> JSF-implementation.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Regards,
> > >>>>> Heinz
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 11/2/05, Bill Dudney <bdudney@mac.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>> I agree,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> lets wait until we branch then start putting the 5.0 syntax.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> TTFN,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> -bd-
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Nov 2, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Martin Marinschek wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> IMHO: No, we shouldn't.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> as soon as we branch of for 1.2, we will.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> regards,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Martin
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On 11/2/05, Grant Smith <grants@marathon-man.com>
wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Speaking of JDK1.5, now that we've released a TCK-compliant
JSF
> > >> 1.1
> > >>>>>>>> implementation, and we're looking to the future,
should we
> > >>>>>>>> start
> > >>>>>>>> allowing 1.5 syntax in the HEAD ?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I'm also now using .jspx (JSP XML format) exclusively
in my own
> > >>>>>>>> projects, as it's easier to edit in XML editors
and just
> > >>>>>>>> *looks*
> > >>>>>>>> cleaner. Converting our example .jsp s should not
be a huge
> > >>>>>>>> task.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Martin Marinschek wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> @srcs not compiling:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> That's Travis working on JDK1.5 who hasn't
ensured backwards
> > >>>>>>>>> compatibility.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> http://www.irian.at
> > >>>>>>> Your JSF powerhouse -
> > >>>>>>> JSF Trainings in English and German
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message