which version to use for new website: 1.2.x vs 1.3 vs 2.0

[Alexei Sokolov <al...@gmail.com>]

Hello wicket developers,

I need your advise as to what version of wicket to use for our new website.

Currently, we have some code using 1.2.3, but we are planning to start
coding much more aggressively very soon. We are trying to hit March 30
deadline for our beta version, and so far it looks like 1.2.x is our best
choice, but with api changes coming in 2.0 it seems like it will be
difficult to switch to that version later. So please help me make the right
choice:
- use 1.2.x and live without newer extensions/libraries (scriptaculous
integration lib requires 2.0) and potentially live with 1.2.x forever
- use 2.0 and run early 2.0 beta code on April 1st, with a possible upgrade
to 2.0 final somewhere around summer'06 (please let me know if this is not
realistic to have it by summer)

Thank you,
Alex

Re: which version to use for new website: 1.2.x vs 1.3 vs 2.0

[Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>]

Basically what I'm saying is that Wicket 2.0 is a fine version as far
as I know, and if there are nasty bugs in it, start shouting here and
they'll be fixed asap. It will just take a while before we get to a
final release, and we might break the API on a few occasions still
(though that should typically be nothing really big).

Eelco

On 1/30/07, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It really depends on your developer team on how comfortable you are
> working on beta versions. If you can find your way around Wicket a
> bit, and you do find important bugs, we are typically fast to respond,
> whichever version it is. And if you have no problem building snapshots
> yourself, you can work on 2.0 today. Wicket 2.0 and 1.3 only differ in
> a few areas, but the code base is still much the same.
>
> So... I would say if you have a project that has to be done this
> summer or later, go for Wicket 2.0 - that is if you are ok with
> building your own snapshots or even working from svn directly. For
> more urgent deadlines, 1.3 is probably better. Also because most of
> the core developers are working on  projects with that version, so any
> updates to 1.3 are immediately tested in real-life applications.
>
> Eelco
>
>
> On 1/30/07, Jon Steelman <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Then for using 2.0 how far out a deadline would you folks recommend
> > for a project someone is beginning now?
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > On 1/30/07, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > He talked about a March 30 deadline, so I think 1.3 would be the best
> > > between the new features we support and stability.
> > >
> > > Eelco
> >
>

Re: which version to use for new website: 1.2.x vs 1.3 vs 2.0

[Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>]

It really depends on your developer team on how comfortable you are
working on beta versions. If you can find your way around Wicket a
bit, and you do find important bugs, we are typically fast to respond,
whichever version it is. And if you have no problem building snapshots
yourself, you can work on 2.0 today. Wicket 2.0 and 1.3 only differ in
a few areas, but the code base is still much the same.

So... I would say if you have a project that has to be done this
summer or later, go for Wicket 2.0 - that is if you are ok with
building your own snapshots or even working from svn directly. For
more urgent deadlines, 1.3 is probably better. Also because most of
the core developers are working on  projects with that version, so any
updates to 1.3 are immediately tested in real-life applications.

Eelco


On 1/30/07, Jon Steelman <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then for using 2.0 how far out a deadline would you folks recommend
> for a project someone is beginning now?
>
> Jon
>
> On 1/30/07, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > He talked about a March 30 deadline, so I think 1.3 would be the best
> > between the new features we support and stability.
> >
> > Eelco
>

Re: which version to use for new website: 1.2.x vs 1.3 vs 2.0

[Jon Steelman <jo...@gmail.com>]

Then for using 2.0 how far out a deadline would you folks recommend
for a project someone is beginning now?

Jon

On 1/30/07, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He talked about a March 30 deadline, so I think 1.3 would be the best
> between the new features we support and stability.
>
> Eelco

Re: which version to use for new website: 1.2.x vs 1.3 vs 2.0

[Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>]

He talked about a March 30 deadline, so I think 1.3 would be the best
between the new features we support and stability.

Eelco


On 1/30/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> that all depends on how long the development is planned for!
>
> If they like to have java 5 and can live for a few months with a bit moving
> target.
> then 2.0 could be a good choice.
> especially on the long run, if you do now 1.3 you will never go to 2.0anymore
>
> johan
>
>
> On 1/30/07, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, 1.3 is the best to go if you're ramping up for development now.
> >
> > Eelco
> >
> >
> > On 1/29/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > i would go with 1.3 branch. 2.0 is still unstable and if you have a
> > deadline
> > > i wouldnt go with it
> > >
> > > -igor
> > >
> > >
> > > On 1/29/07, Alexei Sokolov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello wicket developers,
> > > >
> > > > I need your advise as to what version of wicket to use for our new
> > > > website.
> > > >
> > > > Currently, we have some code using 1.2.3, but we are planning to start
> > > > coding much more aggressively very soon. We are trying to hit March 30
> > > > deadline for our beta version, and so far it looks like 1.2.x is our
> > best
> > > > choice, but with api changes coming in 2.0 it seems like it will be
> > > > difficult to switch to that version later. So please help me make the
> > > > right
> > > > choice:
> > > > - use 1.2.x and live without newer extensions/libraries (scriptaculous
> > > > integration lib requires 2.0) and potentially live with 1.2.x forever
> > > > - use 2.0 and run early 2.0 beta code on April 1st, with a possible
> > > > upgrade
> > > > to 2.0 final somewhere around summer'06 (please let me know if this is
> > not
> > > > realistic to have it by summer)
> > > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > > Alex
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>

Re: which version to use for new website: 1.2.x vs 1.3 vs 2.0

[Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>]

that all depends on how long the development is planned for!

If they like to have java 5 and can live for a few months with a bit moving
target.
then 2.0 could be a good choice.
especially on the long run, if you do now 1.3 you will never go to 2.0anymore

johan


On 1/30/07, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, 1.3 is the best to go if you're ramping up for development now.
>
> Eelco
>
>
> On 1/29/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > i would go with 1.3 branch. 2.0 is still unstable and if you have a
> deadline
> > i wouldnt go with it
> >
> > -igor
> >
> >
> > On 1/29/07, Alexei Sokolov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello wicket developers,
> > >
> > > I need your advise as to what version of wicket to use for our new
> > > website.
> > >
> > > Currently, we have some code using 1.2.3, but we are planning to start
> > > coding much more aggressively very soon. We are trying to hit March 30
> > > deadline for our beta version, and so far it looks like 1.2.x is our
> best
> > > choice, but with api changes coming in 2.0 it seems like it will be
> > > difficult to switch to that version later. So please help me make the
> > > right
> > > choice:
> > > - use 1.2.x and live without newer extensions/libraries (scriptaculous
> > > integration lib requires 2.0) and potentially live with 1.2.x forever
> > > - use 2.0 and run early 2.0 beta code on April 1st, with a possible
> > > upgrade
> > > to 2.0 final somewhere around summer'06 (please let me know if this is
> not
> > > realistic to have it by summer)
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Alex
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: which version to use for new website: 1.2.x vs 1.3 vs 2.0

[Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>]

Yeah, 1.3 is the best to go if you're ramping up for development now.

Eelco


On 1/29/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i would go with 1.3 branch. 2.0 is still unstable and if you have a deadline
> i wouldnt go with it
>
> -igor
>
>
> On 1/29/07, Alexei Sokolov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello wicket developers,
> >
> > I need your advise as to what version of wicket to use for our new
> > website.
> >
> > Currently, we have some code using 1.2.3, but we are planning to start
> > coding much more aggressively very soon. We are trying to hit March 30
> > deadline for our beta version, and so far it looks like 1.2.x is our best
> > choice, but with api changes coming in 2.0 it seems like it will be
> > difficult to switch to that version later. So please help me make the
> > right
> > choice:
> > - use 1.2.x and live without newer extensions/libraries (scriptaculous
> > integration lib requires 2.0) and potentially live with 1.2.x forever
> > - use 2.0 and run early 2.0 beta code on April 1st, with a possible
> > upgrade
> > to 2.0 final somewhere around summer'06 (please let me know if this is not
> > realistic to have it by summer)
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Alex
> >
> >
>

Re: which version to use for new website: 1.2.x vs 1.3 vs 2.0

[Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>]

i would go with 1.3 branch. 2.0 is still unstable and if you have a deadline
i wouldnt go with it

-igor


On 1/29/07, Alexei Sokolov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello wicket developers,
>
> I need your advise as to what version of wicket to use for our new
> website.
>
> Currently, we have some code using 1.2.3, but we are planning to start
> coding much more aggressively very soon. We are trying to hit March 30
> deadline for our beta version, and so far it looks like 1.2.x is our best
> choice, but with api changes coming in 2.0 it seems like it will be
> difficult to switch to that version later. So please help me make the
> right
> choice:
> - use 1.2.x and live without newer extensions/libraries (scriptaculous
> integration lib requires 2.0) and potentially live with 1.2.x forever
> - use 2.0 and run early 2.0 beta code on April 1st, with a possible
> upgrade
> to 2.0 final somewhere around summer'06 (please let me know if this is not
> realistic to have it by summer)
>
> Thank you,
> Alex
>
>