myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Kienenberger <mkien...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: JDK 1.5, JSP 2.0 XML
Date Fri, 04 Nov 2005 17:33:55 GMT
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