You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wicket.apache.org by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> on 2015/10/30 15:51:15 UTC
The future of older Wicket 6.x and 7.x branches
While it is just recently that we released Wicket 7 requiring Java7,
the Java eco system is moving along faster than our release schedule
can keep up with.
I'm sure I won't be able to actually build Wicket 6.x releases next
year due to Java 6 not being available (OS X 10.11 removed the Java 6
installation I had on my box, I was able to re-install it). It was
damn hard to build it now, thanks to Maven requiring Java 7, and the
need for us to use Java 6 to compile and link the wicket jars.
Wicket 7 will be similarly hard to build soon because of the JavaDoc
mess Oracle inflicted on us in Java 8, and Java 7 being no longer
publicly available with security updates and such.
IMO this forces our hand to move quicker with upgrading our minimum
required Java version and perhaps even consider that upgrading the
minimum Java version is not a semver violation.
WDYT?
Martijn
Re: The future of older Wicket 6.x and 7.x branches
Posted by Martin Grigorov <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I volunteer to take over the release manager position for 6.x branch. Even
for 7.x.
I have all JDKs from 1.5.0_22 on and I don't plan to move to different OS
anytime soon.
On Oct 30, 2015 4:51 PM, "Martijn Dashorst" <ma...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> While it is just recently that we released Wicket 7 requiring Java7,
> the Java eco system is moving along faster than our release schedule
> can keep up with.
>
> I'm sure I won't be able to actually build Wicket 6.x releases next
> year due to Java 6 not being available (OS X 10.11 removed the Java 6
> installation I had on my box, I was able to re-install it). It was
> damn hard to build it now, thanks to Maven requiring Java 7, and the
> need for us to use Java 6 to compile and link the wicket jars.
>
> Wicket 7 will be similarly hard to build soon because of the JavaDoc
> mess Oracle inflicted on us in Java 8, and Java 7 being no longer
> publicly available with security updates and such.
>
> IMO this forces our hand to move quicker with upgrading our minimum
> required Java version and perhaps even consider that upgrading the
> minimum Java version is not a semver violation.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Martijn
>
Re: The future of older Wicket 6.x and 7.x branches
Posted by andrea del bene <an...@gmail.com>.
On 30/10/2015 15:51, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> While it is just recently that we released Wicket 7 requiring Java7,
> the Java eco system is moving along faster than our release schedule
> can keep up with.
>
> I'm sure I won't be able to actually build Wicket 6.x releases next
> year due to Java 6 not being available (OS X 10.11 removed the Java 6
> installation I had on my box, I was able to re-install it). It was
> damn hard to build it now, thanks to Maven requiring Java 7, and the
> need for us to use Java 6 to compile and link the wicket jars.
>
> Wicket 7 will be similarly hard to build soon because of the JavaDoc
> mess Oracle inflicted on us in Java 8, and Java 7 being no longer
> publicly available with security updates and such.
>
> IMO this forces our hand to move quicker with upgrading our minimum
> required Java version and perhaps even consider that upgrading the
> minimum Java version is not a semver violation.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Martijn
The real problem is that Wicket lives in the JEE ecosystem and it can be
quite misleading (if not harmful) changing the minimum Java required for
a new minor release. One possible solution could be using Docker images
with the required version of Java (https://github.com/dockerfile/java).
RE: The future of older Wicket 6.x and 7.x branches
Posted by Chris Colman <ch...@stepaheadsoftware.com>.
I definitely think dropping Java 6 support would be fine for most users
as it's quite old now.
Java 7 is a different story. We still use Java 7 to build our code
because many of our corporate clients are still using Java 7 and so we
need to be able to build Java 7 binaries for them in the short/medium
term.
An initial dropping of support for Java 6 should not result in too much
screaming ;)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martijn Dashorst [mailto:martijn.dashorst@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, 31 October 2015 1:51 AM
> To: dev@wicket.apache.org
> Subject: The future of older Wicket 6.x and 7.x branches
>
> While it is just recently that we released Wicket 7 requiring Java7,
> the Java eco system is moving along faster than our release schedule
> can keep up with.
>
> I'm sure I won't be able to actually build Wicket 6.x releases next
> year due to Java 6 not being available (OS X 10.11 removed the Java 6
> installation I had on my box, I was able to re-install it). It was
> damn hard to build it now, thanks to Maven requiring Java 7, and the
> need for us to use Java 6 to compile and link the wicket jars.
>
> Wicket 7 will be similarly hard to build soon because of the JavaDoc
> mess Oracle inflicted on us in Java 8, and Java 7 being no longer
> publicly available with security updates and such.
>
> IMO this forces our hand to move quicker with upgrading our minimum
> required Java version and perhaps even consider that upgrading the
> minimum Java version is not a semver violation.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Martijn