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 2012/08/22 21:35:10 UTC
Wicket 6: some hanging fruit before final?
All,
As I was preparing to build a final, I noticed that we don't yet have
moved to servlet 3 in master. I thought that for the web socket stuff
we needed to at least move to 3.0. I do see a commit in the history
that adds servlet 3 done by Emond. I also see a commit reverting Jetty
from jetty 8 to jetty 7 as jetty 8 requires servlet 3, also done by
Emond.
I wonder what the status is of our servlet 3 handling, is it still on
the map for 6? We can't upgrade to 3 in 6.x after 6.0, so I'd rather
move now than later.
Martijn
--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Re: Wicket 6: some hanging fruit before final?
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
Minor issues with requiring Servlet 3:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54065
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Martijn Dashorst
<ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Emond Papegaaij
> <em...@topicus.nl> wrote:
>> I've started a vote some time ago about this (somewhere in april), and it was
>> decided not to move to servlet 3 for wicket 6. Wicket itself does not (yet)
>> require it, and users are free to use a servlet 3 container. Even if some part
>> of wicket requires servlet 3, you can have that part depend on servlet 3 and
>> leave the main dependency on 2.5.
>
> So CDI, Web sockets don't require servlet 3? If so, I'll stop
> complaining for Wicket 6 to adopt servlet 3 and start the build.
>
> Martijn
--
Martin Grigorov
jWeekend
Training, Consulting, Development
http://jWeekend.com
Re: Wicket 6: some hanging fruit before final?
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Emond Papegaaij
<em...@topicus.nl> wrote:
> I've started a vote some time ago about this (somewhere in april), and it was
> decided not to move to servlet 3 for wicket 6. Wicket itself does not (yet)
> require it, and users are free to use a servlet 3 container. Even if some part
> of wicket requires servlet 3, you can have that part depend on servlet 3 and
> leave the main dependency on 2.5.
So CDI, Web sockets don't require servlet 3? If so, I'll stop
complaining for Wicket 6 to adopt servlet 3 and start the build.
Martijn
Re: Wicket 6: some hanging fruit before final?
Posted by Emond Papegaaij <em...@topicus.nl>.
I've started a vote some time ago about this (somewhere in april), and it was
decided not to move to servlet 3 for wicket 6. Wicket itself does not (yet)
require it, and users are free to use a servlet 3 container. Even if some part
of wicket requires servlet 3, you can have that part depend on servlet 3 and
leave the main dependency on 2.5.
Best regards,
Emond
On Wednesday 22 August 2012 23:31:11 Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>
wrote:
> > I still see no reason to require Servlet 3.0.
> > Wicket runs fine on servlet 3.0 containers and you can use some of the
> > features from 3.0, but I don't believe that you will add some code to
> > Wicket that will make big benefit for the users next week. I guess you
> > will just add an item to the migration page that Wicket requires
> > Servlet 3.0 and this will scare half of the users out there, as you
> > did with Wicket 1.5/Servlet 2.5 :-)
>
> The issue is that 6.x will probably live for quite a while, and if we
> actually want to use stuff that is native to servlet 3, we will have
> painted ourselves into a corner. I thought that websockets required
> servlet 3, so when we move them out of experimental phase, IIUC they
> can only be added into wicket 7 (my quick try showed that servlet 3
> breaks some code–didn't investigate too much further).
>
> > Stop looking for excuses to build Wicket 6.0.0! Do it! :-)
>
> Still shaving a yak (or rather: upgrading most dependencies in parent-pom)!
>
> Martijn
Re: Wicket 6: some hanging fruit before final?
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org> wrote:
> I still see no reason to require Servlet 3.0.
> Wicket runs fine on servlet 3.0 containers and you can use some of the
> features from 3.0, but I don't believe that you will add some code to
> Wicket that will make big benefit for the users next week. I guess you
> will just add an item to the migration page that Wicket requires
> Servlet 3.0 and this will scare half of the users out there, as you
> did with Wicket 1.5/Servlet 2.5 :-)
The issue is that 6.x will probably live for quite a while, and if we
actually want to use stuff that is native to servlet 3, we will have
painted ourselves into a corner. I thought that websockets required
servlet 3, so when we move them out of experimental phase, IIUC they
can only be added into wicket 7 (my quick try showed that servlet 3
breaks some code–didn't investigate too much further).
> Stop looking for excuses to build Wicket 6.0.0! Do it! :-)
Still shaving a yak (or rather: upgrading most dependencies in parent-pom)!
Martijn
Re: Wicket 6: some hanging fruit before final?
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Martijn Dashorst
<ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://s.apache.org/wicket-servlet3-discuss
I remember just the talk in IRC :-/
>
> It has been proposed a couple of times for the roadmap for 6. There is
> no confusion between Emond and myself (at least for servlet 3, I won't
> comment on any confusion on other topics :-)). We both think that
> servlet 3 is out long enough and supported widely enough to move on
> (or he has changed his opinion since last I've seen him).
I still see no reason to require Servlet 3.0.
Wicket runs fine on servlet 3.0 containers and you can use some of the
features from 3.0, but I don't believe that you will add some code to
Wicket that will make big benefit for the users next week. I guess you
will just add an item to the migration page that Wicket requires
Servlet 3.0 and this will scare half of the users out there, as you
did with Wicket 1.5/Servlet 2.5 :-)
Stop looking for excuses to build Wicket 6.0.0! Do it! :-)
>
> Martijn
>
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Requiring Servlet 3.x as minimum version has never been in the scope
>> of Wicket 6. It is neither in the roadmap page nor there was any mail
>> discussion about this.
>> I think this is some confusion in/between you and Emond. He also
>> mentioned this few months ago in IRC.
>>
>> I see no reason to require Servlet 3.0 at this moment. Atmosphere
>> doesn't need it.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Martijn Dashorst
>> <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> As I was preparing to build a final, I noticed that we don't yet have
>>> moved to servlet 3 in master. I thought that for the web socket stuff
>>> we needed to at least move to 3.0. I do see a commit in the history
>>> that adds servlet 3 done by Emond. I also see a commit reverting Jetty
>>> from jetty 8 to jetty 7 as jetty 8 requires servlet 3, also done by
>>> Emond.
>>>
>>> I wonder what the status is of our servlet 3 handling, is it still on
>>> the map for 6? We can't upgrade to 3 in 6.x after 6.0, so I'd rather
>>> move now than later.
>>>
>>> Martijn
>>>
>>> --
>>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Martin Grigorov
>> jWeekend
>> Training, Consulting, Development
>> http://jWeekend.com
>
>
>
> --
> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
--
Martin Grigorov
jWeekend
Training, Consulting, Development
http://jWeekend.com
Re: Wicket 6: some hanging fruit before final?
Posted by tetsuo <ro...@gmail.com>.
If the code doesn't require it, why add it artificially?
Is there any planned feature that may potentially require it?
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Martijn Dashorst
<ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://s.apache.org/wicket-servlet3-discuss
>
> It has been proposed a couple of times for the roadmap for 6. There is
> no confusion between Emond and myself (at least for servlet 3, I won't
> comment on any confusion on other topics :-)). We both think that
> servlet 3 is out long enough and supported widely enough to move on
> (or he has changed his opinion since last I've seen him).
>
> Martijn
>
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Requiring Servlet 3.x as minimum version has never been in the scope
>> of Wicket 6. It is neither in the roadmap page nor there was any mail
>> discussion about this.
>> I think this is some confusion in/between you and Emond. He also
>> mentioned this few months ago in IRC.
>>
>> I see no reason to require Servlet 3.0 at this moment. Atmosphere
>> doesn't need it.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Martijn Dashorst
>> <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> As I was preparing to build a final, I noticed that we don't yet have
>>> moved to servlet 3 in master. I thought that for the web socket stuff
>>> we needed to at least move to 3.0. I do see a commit in the history
>>> that adds servlet 3 done by Emond. I also see a commit reverting Jetty
>>> from jetty 8 to jetty 7 as jetty 8 requires servlet 3, also done by
>>> Emond.
>>>
>>> I wonder what the status is of our servlet 3 handling, is it still on
>>> the map for 6? We can't upgrade to 3 in 6.x after 6.0, so I'd rather
>>> move now than later.
>>>
>>> Martijn
>>>
>>> --
>>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Martin Grigorov
>> jWeekend
>> Training, Consulting, Development
>> http://jWeekend.com
>
>
>
> --
> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Re: Wicket 6: some hanging fruit before final?
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
http://s.apache.org/wicket-servlet3-discuss
It has been proposed a couple of times for the roadmap for 6. There is
no confusion between Emond and myself (at least for servlet 3, I won't
comment on any confusion on other topics :-)). We both think that
servlet 3 is out long enough and supported widely enough to move on
(or he has changed his opinion since last I've seen him).
Martijn
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Requiring Servlet 3.x as minimum version has never been in the scope
> of Wicket 6. It is neither in the roadmap page nor there was any mail
> discussion about this.
> I think this is some confusion in/between you and Emond. He also
> mentioned this few months ago in IRC.
>
> I see no reason to require Servlet 3.0 at this moment. Atmosphere
> doesn't need it.
>
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Martijn Dashorst
> <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> As I was preparing to build a final, I noticed that we don't yet have
>> moved to servlet 3 in master. I thought that for the web socket stuff
>> we needed to at least move to 3.0. I do see a commit in the history
>> that adds servlet 3 done by Emond. I also see a commit reverting Jetty
>> from jetty 8 to jetty 7 as jetty 8 requires servlet 3, also done by
>> Emond.
>>
>> I wonder what the status is of our servlet 3 handling, is it still on
>> the map for 6? We can't upgrade to 3 in 6.x after 6.0, so I'd rather
>> move now than later.
>>
>> Martijn
>>
>> --
>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>
>
>
> --
> Martin Grigorov
> jWeekend
> Training, Consulting, Development
> http://jWeekend.com
--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Re: Wicket 6: some hanging fruit before final?
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
Hi,
Requiring Servlet 3.x as minimum version has never been in the scope
of Wicket 6. It is neither in the roadmap page nor there was any mail
discussion about this.
I think this is some confusion in/between you and Emond. He also
mentioned this few months ago in IRC.
I see no reason to require Servlet 3.0 at this moment. Atmosphere
doesn't need it.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Martijn Dashorst
<ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> As I was preparing to build a final, I noticed that we don't yet have
> moved to servlet 3 in master. I thought that for the web socket stuff
> we needed to at least move to 3.0. I do see a commit in the history
> that adds servlet 3 done by Emond. I also see a commit reverting Jetty
> from jetty 8 to jetty 7 as jetty 8 requires servlet 3, also done by
> Emond.
>
> I wonder what the status is of our servlet 3 handling, is it still on
> the map for 6? We can't upgrade to 3 in 6.x after 6.0, so I'd rather
> move now than later.
>
> Martijn
>
> --
> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
--
Martin Grigorov
jWeekend
Training, Consulting, Development
http://jWeekend.com