You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wicket.apache.org by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> on 2007/10/20 08:44:09 UTC
beta 5 this weekend?
Hey,
If someone (Frank?) is up to helping me a bit this weekend, how about
putting our beta 5 this weekend. The reason is selfish: we
(Teachscape) are gonna do a big release this weekend, I just fixed an
issue I need, and I also would like to use the memory improvements,
but I don't want to fix on a SNAPSHOT. But it's also a practice round
to see whether we can release more often.
WDYT?
Eelco
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
well, the idea is that we dont release it until after 1.3.2 by which
time there shouldnt be very many bugs left in 1.3
-igor
On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yeah right.
> so if i do that in 1 weekend then we release 1.4?
> i don't think so. i am not going to maintain then 2 versions again....
>
> 1.4 will not be just 1.3 + generics.
> It should be just a 'normal' cycle like 6? months and see what we can drop
> in.
>
> What features of 2.0 are left at this time?
>
> johan
>
>
>
> On 10/22/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > correct me if im wrong, but the plan was (and still is?) for 1.4 to
> > ONLY have the generics applied...
> >
> > -igor
> >
> >
> > On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > no i meant what i did say, i think the api change for 1.4 will not be
> > that
> > > much changed
> > > as 1.2 -> 1.3 (converters,validators,models all those are changed, i
> > don't
> > > think that will happen any time soon again)
> > >
> > > and as i said generifying api is not an api change.
> > >
> > > johan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/22/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I suspect that he meant to say: the API is stable for 1.3. We still
> > > > stick to supplying JDK 1.5 model implementations that sport generics.
> > > > I haven't heard anything to the contrary.
> > > >
> > > > Generics support should become available on trunk after 1.3.1/1.3.2.
> > > > Usually we create a separate branch for a stable release after the
> > > > first or second bug fix release. This way we don't have to support 2
> > > > branches with lots of patching between them.
> > > >
> > > > Martijn
> > > >
> > > > On 10/22/07, Philip A. Chapman <pc...@pcsw.us> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 11:13 +0200, Johan Compagner wrote:
> > > > > > but i am already in a none api break mode at this time
> > > > > > I still hope that all the refactoring we have done in 1.3 will
> > result
> > > > in a
> > > > > > much stabler api from now on
> > > > > > For example i don't see the major interfaces like all the model
> > > > > > interfaces/classes change now much anymore.
> > > > > > I guess the same is true for validators/behaviors.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are a few projects that I have been holding out for the wicket
> > > > > 1.4/1.5/whatever with generics. When you say "now on", it seems as
> > if
> > > > > you think the API is pretty stable for the foreseeable future and
> > that
> > > > > maybe we will not be moving to generics any time soon? Am I the
> > very
> > > > > last one holding out hope for wicket to pick generics back up? I'd
> > > > > kinda like to know where we are heading and how long it might take
> > so
> > > > > that I can either plan for continuing to support our branch of old
> > 2.0
> > > > > or down-grade (cross-grade?) my projects to 1.3.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Philip A. Chapman
> > > > >
> > > > > Desktop and Web Application Development:
> > > > > Java, .NET, PostgreSQL, MySQL, MSSQL
> > > > > Linux, Windows 2000, Windows XP
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> > > > Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released
> > > > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>.
i only see 1 problem arise if we quickly release the 1.4 version
then we have this:
people still on 1.2.x (there are still bug reports coming in....)
people on 1.3
people on 1.4
and we have then branch for 2.0?
and i have to see if we can "finalize" 1.3 with one (or 2) release(s)
Of course just create a milestone (beta1 or what ever we call it) then
people can use it but it won't be the final release
johan
On 10/22/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We should however put out a milestone release after your weekend of
> fun, so people waiting for the generics can work to that (mostly?)
> stable release. I suspect the generics can be considered stable, or
> some epiphany should strike?
>
> Martijn
>
> On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > yeah right.
> > so if i do that in 1 weekend then we release 1.4?
> > i don't think so. i am not going to maintain then 2 versions again....
> >
> > 1.4 will not be just 1.3 + generics.
> > It should be just a 'normal' cycle like 6? months and see what we can
> drop
> > in.
> >
> > What features of 2.0 are left at this time?
> >
> > johan
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/22/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > correct me if im wrong, but the plan was (and still is?) for 1.4 to
> > > ONLY have the generics applied...
> > >
> > > -igor
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > no i meant what i did say, i think the api change for 1.4 will not
> be
> > > that
> > > > much changed
> > > > as 1.2 -> 1.3 (converters,validators,models all those are changed, i
> > > don't
> > > > think that will happen any time soon again)
> > > >
> > > > and as i said generifying api is not an api change.
> > > >
> > > > johan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/22/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I suspect that he meant to say: the API is stable for 1.3. We
> still
> > > > > stick to supplying JDK 1.5 model implementations that sport
> generics.
> > > > > I haven't heard anything to the contrary.
> > > > >
> > > > > Generics support should become available on trunk after 1.3.1
> /1.3.2.
> > > > > Usually we create a separate branch for a stable release after the
> > > > > first or second bug fix release. This way we don't have to support
> 2
> > > > > branches with lots of patching between them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Martijn
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/22/07, Philip A. Chapman <pc...@pcsw.us> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 11:13 +0200, Johan Compagner wrote:
> > > > > > > but i am already in a none api break mode at this time
> > > > > > > I still hope that all the refactoring we have done in 1.3 will
> > > result
> > > > > in a
> > > > > > > much stabler api from now on
> > > > > > > For example i don't see the major interfaces like all the
> model
> > > > > > > interfaces/classes change now much anymore.
> > > > > > > I guess the same is true for validators/behaviors.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are a few projects that I have been holding out for the
> wicket
> > > > > > 1.4/1.5/whatever with generics. When you say "now on", it seems
> as
> > > if
> > > > > > you think the API is pretty stable for the foreseeable future
> and
> > > that
> > > > > > maybe we will not be moving to generics any time soon? Am I the
> > > very
> > > > > > last one holding out hope for wicket to pick generics back
> up? I'd
> > > > > > kinda like to know where we are heading and how long it might
> take
> > > so
> > > > > > that I can either plan for continuing to support our branch of
> old
> > > 2.0
> > > > > > or down-grade (cross-grade?) my projects to 1.3.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Philip A. Chapman
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Desktop and Web Application Development:
> > > > > > Java, .NET, PostgreSQL, MySQL, MSSQL
> > > > > > Linux, Windows 2000, Windows XP
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> > > > > Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released
> > > > > Get it now:
> http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released
> Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/
>
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
We should however put out a milestone release after your weekend of
fun, so people waiting for the generics can work to that (mostly?)
stable release. I suspect the generics can be considered stable, or
some epiphany should strike?
Martijn
On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yeah right.
> so if i do that in 1 weekend then we release 1.4?
> i don't think so. i am not going to maintain then 2 versions again....
>
> 1.4 will not be just 1.3 + generics.
> It should be just a 'normal' cycle like 6? months and see what we can drop
> in.
>
> What features of 2.0 are left at this time?
>
> johan
>
>
>
> On 10/22/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > correct me if im wrong, but the plan was (and still is?) for 1.4 to
> > ONLY have the generics applied...
> >
> > -igor
> >
> >
> > On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > no i meant what i did say, i think the api change for 1.4 will not be
> > that
> > > much changed
> > > as 1.2 -> 1.3 (converters,validators,models all those are changed, i
> > don't
> > > think that will happen any time soon again)
> > >
> > > and as i said generifying api is not an api change.
> > >
> > > johan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/22/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I suspect that he meant to say: the API is stable for 1.3. We still
> > > > stick to supplying JDK 1.5 model implementations that sport generics.
> > > > I haven't heard anything to the contrary.
> > > >
> > > > Generics support should become available on trunk after 1.3.1/1.3.2.
> > > > Usually we create a separate branch for a stable release after the
> > > > first or second bug fix release. This way we don't have to support 2
> > > > branches with lots of patching between them.
> > > >
> > > > Martijn
> > > >
> > > > On 10/22/07, Philip A. Chapman <pc...@pcsw.us> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 11:13 +0200, Johan Compagner wrote:
> > > > > > but i am already in a none api break mode at this time
> > > > > > I still hope that all the refactoring we have done in 1.3 will
> > result
> > > > in a
> > > > > > much stabler api from now on
> > > > > > For example i don't see the major interfaces like all the model
> > > > > > interfaces/classes change now much anymore.
> > > > > > I guess the same is true for validators/behaviors.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are a few projects that I have been holding out for the wicket
> > > > > 1.4/1.5/whatever with generics. When you say "now on", it seems as
> > if
> > > > > you think the API is pretty stable for the foreseeable future and
> > that
> > > > > maybe we will not be moving to generics any time soon? Am I the
> > very
> > > > > last one holding out hope for wicket to pick generics back up? I'd
> > > > > kinda like to know where we are heading and how long it might take
> > so
> > > > > that I can either plan for continuing to support our branch of old
> > 2.0
> > > > > or down-grade (cross-grade?) my projects to 1.3.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Philip A. Chapman
> > > > >
> > > > > Desktop and Web Application Development:
> > > > > Java, .NET, PostgreSQL, MySQL, MSSQL
> > > > > Linux, Windows 2000, Windows XP
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> > > > Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released
> > > > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>.
yeah right.
so if i do that in 1 weekend then we release 1.4?
i don't think so. i am not going to maintain then 2 versions again....
1.4 will not be just 1.3 + generics.
It should be just a 'normal' cycle like 6? months and see what we can drop
in.
What features of 2.0 are left at this time?
johan
On 10/22/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> correct me if im wrong, but the plan was (and still is?) for 1.4 to
> ONLY have the generics applied...
>
> -igor
>
>
> On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > no i meant what i did say, i think the api change for 1.4 will not be
> that
> > much changed
> > as 1.2 -> 1.3 (converters,validators,models all those are changed, i
> don't
> > think that will happen any time soon again)
> >
> > and as i said generifying api is not an api change.
> >
> > johan
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/22/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I suspect that he meant to say: the API is stable for 1.3. We still
> > > stick to supplying JDK 1.5 model implementations that sport generics.
> > > I haven't heard anything to the contrary.
> > >
> > > Generics support should become available on trunk after 1.3.1/1.3.2.
> > > Usually we create a separate branch for a stable release after the
> > > first or second bug fix release. This way we don't have to support 2
> > > branches with lots of patching between them.
> > >
> > > Martijn
> > >
> > > On 10/22/07, Philip A. Chapman <pc...@pcsw.us> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 11:13 +0200, Johan Compagner wrote:
> > > > > but i am already in a none api break mode at this time
> > > > > I still hope that all the refactoring we have done in 1.3 will
> result
> > > in a
> > > > > much stabler api from now on
> > > > > For example i don't see the major interfaces like all the model
> > > > > interfaces/classes change now much anymore.
> > > > > I guess the same is true for validators/behaviors.
> > > >
> > > > There are a few projects that I have been holding out for the wicket
> > > > 1.4/1.5/whatever with generics. When you say "now on", it seems as
> if
> > > > you think the API is pretty stable for the foreseeable future and
> that
> > > > maybe we will not be moving to generics any time soon? Am I the
> very
> > > > last one holding out hope for wicket to pick generics back up? I'd
> > > > kinda like to know where we are heading and how long it might take
> so
> > > > that I can either plan for continuing to support our branch of old
> 2.0
> > > > or down-grade (cross-grade?) my projects to 1.3.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Philip A. Chapman
> > > >
> > > > Desktop and Web Application Development:
> > > > Java, .NET, PostgreSQL, MySQL, MSSQL
> > > > Linux, Windows 2000, Windows XP
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> > > Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released
> > > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/
> > >
> >
>
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
On 10/22/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> correct me if im wrong, but the plan was (and still is?) for 1.4 to
> ONLY have the generics applied...
Yes. 1.4 is for the last missing JDK 5 related features of 2.0.
Eelco
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
correct me if im wrong, but the plan was (and still is?) for 1.4 to
ONLY have the generics applied...
-igor
On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> no i meant what i did say, i think the api change for 1.4 will not be that
> much changed
> as 1.2 -> 1.3 (converters,validators,models all those are changed, i don't
> think that will happen any time soon again)
>
> and as i said generifying api is not an api change.
>
> johan
>
>
>
> On 10/22/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I suspect that he meant to say: the API is stable for 1.3. We still
> > stick to supplying JDK 1.5 model implementations that sport generics.
> > I haven't heard anything to the contrary.
> >
> > Generics support should become available on trunk after 1.3.1/1.3.2.
> > Usually we create a separate branch for a stable release after the
> > first or second bug fix release. This way we don't have to support 2
> > branches with lots of patching between them.
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> > On 10/22/07, Philip A. Chapman <pc...@pcsw.us> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 11:13 +0200, Johan Compagner wrote:
> > > > but i am already in a none api break mode at this time
> > > > I still hope that all the refactoring we have done in 1.3 will result
> > in a
> > > > much stabler api from now on
> > > > For example i don't see the major interfaces like all the model
> > > > interfaces/classes change now much anymore.
> > > > I guess the same is true for validators/behaviors.
> > >
> > > There are a few projects that I have been holding out for the wicket
> > > 1.4/1.5/whatever with generics. When you say "now on", it seems as if
> > > you think the API is pretty stable for the foreseeable future and that
> > > maybe we will not be moving to generics any time soon? Am I the very
> > > last one holding out hope for wicket to pick generics back up? I'd
> > > kinda like to know where we are heading and how long it might take so
> > > that I can either plan for continuing to support our branch of old 2.0
> > > or down-grade (cross-grade?) my projects to 1.3.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Philip A. Chapman
> > >
> > > Desktop and Web Application Development:
> > > Java, .NET, PostgreSQL, MySQL, MSSQL
> > > Linux, Windows 2000, Windows XP
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> > Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released
> > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/
> >
>
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>.
no i meant what i did say, i think the api change for 1.4 will not be that
much changed
as 1.2 -> 1.3 (converters,validators,models all those are changed, i don't
think that will happen any time soon again)
and as i said generifying api is not an api change.
johan
On 10/22/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I suspect that he meant to say: the API is stable for 1.3. We still
> stick to supplying JDK 1.5 model implementations that sport generics.
> I haven't heard anything to the contrary.
>
> Generics support should become available on trunk after 1.3.1/1.3.2.
> Usually we create a separate branch for a stable release after the
> first or second bug fix release. This way we don't have to support 2
> branches with lots of patching between them.
>
> Martijn
>
> On 10/22/07, Philip A. Chapman <pc...@pcsw.us> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 11:13 +0200, Johan Compagner wrote:
> > > but i am already in a none api break mode at this time
> > > I still hope that all the refactoring we have done in 1.3 will result
> in a
> > > much stabler api from now on
> > > For example i don't see the major interfaces like all the model
> > > interfaces/classes change now much anymore.
> > > I guess the same is true for validators/behaviors.
> >
> > There are a few projects that I have been holding out for the wicket
> > 1.4/1.5/whatever with generics. When you say "now on", it seems as if
> > you think the API is pretty stable for the foreseeable future and that
> > maybe we will not be moving to generics any time soon? Am I the very
> > last one holding out hope for wicket to pick generics back up? I'd
> > kinda like to know where we are heading and how long it might take so
> > that I can either plan for continuing to support our branch of old 2.0
> > or down-grade (cross-grade?) my projects to 1.3.
> >
> > --
> > Philip A. Chapman
> >
> > Desktop and Web Application Development:
> > Java, .NET, PostgreSQL, MySQL, MSSQL
> > Linux, Windows 2000, Windows XP
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released
> Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/
>
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
I suspect that he meant to say: the API is stable for 1.3. We still
stick to supplying JDK 1.5 model implementations that sport generics.
I haven't heard anything to the contrary.
Generics support should become available on trunk after 1.3.1/1.3.2.
Usually we create a separate branch for a stable release after the
first or second bug fix release. This way we don't have to support 2
branches with lots of patching between them.
Martijn
On 10/22/07, Philip A. Chapman <pc...@pcsw.us> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 11:13 +0200, Johan Compagner wrote:
> > but i am already in a none api break mode at this time
> > I still hope that all the refactoring we have done in 1.3 will result in a
> > much stabler api from now on
> > For example i don't see the major interfaces like all the model
> > interfaces/classes change now much anymore.
> > I guess the same is true for validators/behaviors.
>
> There are a few projects that I have been holding out for the wicket
> 1.4/1.5/whatever with generics. When you say "now on", it seems as if
> you think the API is pretty stable for the foreseeable future and that
> maybe we will not be moving to generics any time soon? Am I the very
> last one holding out hope for wicket to pick generics back up? I'd
> kinda like to know where we are heading and how long it might take so
> that I can either plan for continuing to support our branch of old 2.0
> or down-grade (cross-grade?) my projects to 1.3.
>
> --
> Philip A. Chapman
>
> Desktop and Web Application Development:
> Java, .NET, PostgreSQL, MySQL, MSSQL
> Linux, Windows 2000, Windows XP
>
>
>
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by John Patterson <jd...@gmail.com>.
On 22 Oct 2007, at 16:18, Johan Compagner wrote:
> but then you choose for it (you really have to make a choice what
> kind of
> object you put in it)
> thats not the case if it wasn't there.
>
> Also we could make it so that it was really 1 way of doing so
> object.getClass() == getClass()
> then even that wouldn't work. But that just annoys i guess.
>
True dat. Let the caster beware. I am really looking forward to
using the generics.
John.
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>.
but then you choose for it (you really have to make a choice what kind of
object you put in it)
thats not the case if it wasn't there.
Also we could make it so that it was really 1 way of doing so
object.getClass() == getClass()
then even that wouldn't work. But that just annoys i guess.
johan
On 10/23/07, John Patterson <jd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 22 Oct 2007, at 15:55, Johan Compagner wrote:
>
> > yes thats the exception. But still <T> is not really a substitute
> > for the
> > Class object
> > Because if you just ignore generics then you can do what ever you want
> > and currently you will get an exception..
> >
> > But i guess it cleans up the api so that will be a break if nobody
> > objects.,
> >
>
> Well a user could still pass in Object.class if they wanted - just
> like they could decide to ignore the generic type. I don't see the
> functional difference.
>
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by John Patterson <jd...@gmail.com>.
On 22 Oct 2007, at 15:55, Johan Compagner wrote:
> yes thats the exception. But still <T> is not really a substitute
> for the
> Class object
> Because if you just ignore generics then you can do what ever you want
> and currently you will get an exception..
>
> But i guess it cleans up the api so that will be a break if nobody
> objects.,
>
Well a user could still pass in Object.class if they wanted - just
like they could decide to ignore the generic type. I don't see the
functional difference.
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>.
yes thats the exception. But still <T> is not really a substitute for the
Class object
Because if you just ignore generics then you can do what ever you want
and currently you will get an exception..
But i guess it cleans up the api so that will be a break if nobody objects.,
johan
On 10/22/07, John Patterson <jd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 22 Oct 2007, at 15:16, Philip A. Chapman wrote
> > I've always thought of adding generics as an api change. Sure,
> > it's one
> > that doesn't break backward compatibility, but it's a change non the
>
> MetaDataKey(Class) -> MetaDataKey<T>
>
> would count as an API change? Because the keys are always subclassed
> the type information is available at run-time no?
>
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by John Patterson <jd...@gmail.com>.
On 22 Oct 2007, at 15:16, Philip A. Chapman wrote
> I've always thought of adding generics as an api change. Sure,
> it's one
> that doesn't break backward compatibility, but it's a change non the
MetaDataKey(Class) -> MetaDataKey<T>
would count as an API change? Because the keys are always subclassed
the type information is available at run-time no?
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by "Philip A. Chapman" <pc...@pcsw.us>.
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 18:27 +0200, Johan Compagner wrote:
> for me generics is not an api change.
> do you think that there was an api change in the jdk collection classes when
> they applied generices?
I've always thought of adding generics as an api change. Sure, it's one
that doesn't break backward compatibility, but it's a change non the
less. I'll not argue the point however as it is largely academic. I
asked a clarifying question and you where nice enough to answer. I just
hadn't heard much about generics lately and wanted to be really sure
that I was doing the right thing by waiting for them.
> the old code will still compile fine with the new generified api
Yes. This I know. You'll get compiler warnings, but those can be
turned off.
Thanks for the clarification. I'll continue to hope for a quick beta
program for 1.3. I'm always the optimist.
> johan
>
>
>
> On 10/22/07, Philip A. Chapman <pc...@pcsw.us> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 11:13 +0200, Johan Compagner wrote:
> > > but i am already in a none api break mode at this time
> > > I still hope that all the refactoring we have done in 1.3 will result in
> > a
> > > much stabler api from now on
> > > For example i don't see the major interfaces like all the model
> > > interfaces/classes change now much anymore.
> > > I guess the same is true for validators/behaviors.
> >
> > There are a few projects that I have been holding out for the wicket
> > 1.4/1.5/whatever with generics. When you say "now on", it seems as if
> > you think the API is pretty stable for the foreseeable future and that
> > maybe we will not be moving to generics any time soon? Am I the very
> > last one holding out hope for wicket to pick generics back up? I'd
> > kinda like to know where we are heading and how long it might take so
> > that I can either plan for continuing to support our branch of old 2.0
> > or down-grade (cross-grade?) my projects to 1.3.
> >
> > --
> > Philip A. Chapman
> >
> > Desktop and Web Application Development:
> > Java, .NET, PostgreSQL, MySQL, MSSQL
> > Linux, Windows 2000, Windows XP
> >
> >
> >
--
Philip A. Chapman
Desktop and Web Application Development:
Java, .NET, PostgreSQL, MySQL, MSSQL
Linux, Windows 2000, Windows XP
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>.
for me generics is not an api change.
do you think that there was an api change in the jdk collection classes when
they applied generices?
the old code will still compile fine with the new generified api
johan
On 10/22/07, Philip A. Chapman <pc...@pcsw.us> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 11:13 +0200, Johan Compagner wrote:
> > but i am already in a none api break mode at this time
> > I still hope that all the refactoring we have done in 1.3 will result in
> a
> > much stabler api from now on
> > For example i don't see the major interfaces like all the model
> > interfaces/classes change now much anymore.
> > I guess the same is true for validators/behaviors.
>
> There are a few projects that I have been holding out for the wicket
> 1.4/1.5/whatever with generics. When you say "now on", it seems as if
> you think the API is pretty stable for the foreseeable future and that
> maybe we will not be moving to generics any time soon? Am I the very
> last one holding out hope for wicket to pick generics back up? I'd
> kinda like to know where we are heading and how long it might take so
> that I can either plan for continuing to support our branch of old 2.0
> or down-grade (cross-grade?) my projects to 1.3.
>
> --
> Philip A. Chapman
>
> Desktop and Web Application Development:
> Java, .NET, PostgreSQL, MySQL, MSSQL
> Linux, Windows 2000, Windows XP
>
>
>
AW: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Stefan Lindner <li...@visionet.de>.
You are asking the same question as I do for myself. How and when can we wicket 2.0 users can continue to use current wicket versions.
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Philip A. Chapman [mailto:pchapman@pcsw.us]
Gesendet: Montag, 22. Oktober 2007 17:32
An: dev@wicket.apache.org
Betreff: Re: beta 5 this weekend?
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 11:13 +0200, Johan Compagner wrote:
> but i am already in a none api break mode at this time I still hope
> that all the refactoring we have done in 1.3 will result in a much
> stabler api from now on For example i don't see the major interfaces
> like all the model interfaces/classes change now much anymore.
> I guess the same is true for validators/behaviors.
There are a few projects that I have been holding out for the wicket 1.4/1.5/whatever with generics. When you say "now on", it seems as if you think the API is pretty stable for the foreseeable future and that maybe we will not be moving to generics any time soon? Am I the very last one holding out hope for wicket to pick generics back up? I'd kinda like to know where we are heading and how long it might take so that I can either plan for continuing to support our branch of old 2.0 or down-grade (cross-grade?) my projects to 1.3.
--
Philip A. Chapman
Desktop and Web Application Development:
Java, .NET, PostgreSQL, MySQL, MSSQL
Linux, Windows 2000, Windows XP
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by "Philip A. Chapman" <pc...@pcsw.us>.
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 11:13 +0200, Johan Compagner wrote:
> but i am already in a none api break mode at this time
> I still hope that all the refactoring we have done in 1.3 will result in a
> much stabler api from now on
> For example i don't see the major interfaces like all the model
> interfaces/classes change now much anymore.
> I guess the same is true for validators/behaviors.
There are a few projects that I have been holding out for the wicket
1.4/1.5/whatever with generics. When you say "now on", it seems as if
you think the API is pretty stable for the foreseeable future and that
maybe we will not be moving to generics any time soon? Am I the very
last one holding out hope for wicket to pick generics back up? I'd
kinda like to know where we are heading and how long it might take so
that I can either plan for continuing to support our branch of old 2.0
or down-grade (cross-grade?) my projects to 1.3.
--
Philip A. Chapman
Desktop and Web Application Development:
Java, .NET, PostgreSQL, MySQL, MSSQL
Linux, Windows 2000, Windows XP
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
Then they can write the second edition of Wicket in Action. I'm
through with revising the manuscript on each whim ;-)
Martijn
On 10/22/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > But we never know of course :) igor or matej could just say, i want to
> > change everything again.
>
> just trying to keep things interesting... :)
>
> -igor
>
> >
> > johan
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/22/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The difference is that we won't be doing API breaking stuff when the
> > > final is released.
> > >
> > > RC API changes should go through a vote first. At least this is the
> > > old agreement for 1.2 and older.
> > >
> > > So I agree with Eelco that we should go through the list of issues and
> > > identify which ones are API breaking and which ones can go into the
> > > next (1.4/1.5/2.0?) release.
> > >
> > > Martijn
> > >
> > > On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > i think there are no really major showstoppers at the moment. (as far as
> > > i
> > > > know)
> > > > And whats the difference for you if you just take beta5 now and use that
> > > in
> > > > your production
> > > > or if we already called that final? It will be the same kind of code.
> > > > There isn't anything different then the label we give it..
> > > >
> > > > What is importand for you is do all your pages work are you seeing
> > > > unexpected features?
> > > >
> > > > johan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/21/07, Evan Chooly <ev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > FWIW, i'd love to start seeing RCs. We're shooting for a late
> > > november
> > > > > release and I'd *really* like to see something final soon. It makes
> > > me a
> > > > > little nervous to be still in beta at this point in our release
> > > > > cycle. I'm
> > > > > not complaining, really. I know you guys are busy and are working on
> > > this
> > > > > and other things. Just trying to put in my 2 cents in favor of
> > > cutting a
> > > > > final release in the absence of any major show stoppers.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/20/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > i am not aware of any "show-stopping" bugs, so i am ok if the next
> > > > > > release is an RC1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -igor
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/20/07, Gerolf Seitz <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > alright, then we should somehow make it official.
> > > > > > > also to communicate to "potential" users that the final release is
> > > > > > getting
> > > > > > > closer.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > anyway, what do the others think? (weekends are a bad time to have
> > > a
> > > > > > lively
> > > > > > > discussion ;) )
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gerolf
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/20/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > i am already in ff mode. except optimalisations like we did this
> > > few
> > > > > > > > days. optimisations should always be right after major changes
> > > and
> > > > > > > > freezzz
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 10/20/07, Gerolf Seitz <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 10/20/07, dtoffe <dt...@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It's not about specific bugs, it's this little "beta4"
> > > that
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > > boss
> > > > > > > > > > don't like. Stable as in "no new features or breaking
> > > changes"
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > enough,
> > > > > > > > > > and as some less important bugs are found, some bugfix could
> > > be
> > > > > > > > released
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > 1.3.01 for example.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > thank you daniel, that's exactly what i meant. even though
> > > there
> > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > people using the betas to build great applications,
> > > > > > > > > a final release could allow even more folks to use wicket and
> > > thus
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > higher
> > > > > > > > > adoption and penetration of the market.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > and as johan said:
> > > > > > > > > > I am really curious what bugs are really stopping people for
> > > > > using
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > current build...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > so how about the feature freeze and 2-3 RCs?
> > > > > > > > > bugs can be fixed for 1.3.1 and api breaks go directly into
> > > TNG.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > let's hop on the 1.4-train ;)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Gerolf
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> > > Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released
> > > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/
> > >
> >
>
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But we never know of course :) igor or matej could just say, i want to
> change everything again.
just trying to keep things interesting... :)
-igor
>
> johan
>
>
>
> On 10/22/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The difference is that we won't be doing API breaking stuff when the
> > final is released.
> >
> > RC API changes should go through a vote first. At least this is the
> > old agreement for 1.2 and older.
> >
> > So I agree with Eelco that we should go through the list of issues and
> > identify which ones are API breaking and which ones can go into the
> > next (1.4/1.5/2.0?) release.
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> > On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > i think there are no really major showstoppers at the moment. (as far as
> > i
> > > know)
> > > And whats the difference for you if you just take beta5 now and use that
> > in
> > > your production
> > > or if we already called that final? It will be the same kind of code.
> > > There isn't anything different then the label we give it..
> > >
> > > What is importand for you is do all your pages work are you seeing
> > > unexpected features?
> > >
> > > johan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/21/07, Evan Chooly <ev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > FWIW, i'd love to start seeing RCs. We're shooting for a late
> > november
> > > > release and I'd *really* like to see something final soon. It makes
> > me a
> > > > little nervous to be still in beta at this point in our release
> > > > cycle. I'm
> > > > not complaining, really. I know you guys are busy and are working on
> > this
> > > > and other things. Just trying to put in my 2 cents in favor of
> > cutting a
> > > > final release in the absence of any major show stoppers.
> > > >
> > > > On 10/20/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > i am not aware of any "show-stopping" bugs, so i am ok if the next
> > > > > release is an RC1.
> > > > >
> > > > > -igor
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/20/07, Gerolf Seitz <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > alright, then we should somehow make it official.
> > > > > > also to communicate to "potential" users that the final release is
> > > > > getting
> > > > > > closer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > anyway, what do the others think? (weekends are a bad time to have
> > a
> > > > > lively
> > > > > > discussion ;) )
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gerolf
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/20/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > i am already in ff mode. except optimalisations like we did this
> > few
> > > > > > > days. optimisations should always be right after major changes
> > and
> > > > > > > freezzz
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/20/07, Gerolf Seitz <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 10/20/07, dtoffe <dt...@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's not about specific bugs, it's this little "beta4"
> > that
> > > > my
> > > > > > > boss
> > > > > > > > > don't like. Stable as in "no new features or breaking
> > changes"
> > > > is
> > > > > > > enough,
> > > > > > > > > and as some less important bugs are found, some bugfix could
> > be
> > > > > > > released
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > 1.3.01 for example.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > thank you daniel, that's exactly what i meant. even though
> > there
> > > > > already
> > > > > > > > people using the betas to build great applications,
> > > > > > > > a final release could allow even more folks to use wicket and
> > thus
> > > > a
> > > > > > > higher
> > > > > > > > adoption and penetration of the market.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > and as johan said:
> > > > > > > > > I am really curious what bugs are really stopping people for
> > > > using
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > current build...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > so how about the feature freeze and 2-3 RCs?
> > > > > > > > bugs can be fixed for 1.3.1 and api breaks go directly into
> > TNG.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > let's hop on the 1.4-train ;)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Gerolf
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> > Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released
> > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/
> >
>
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>.
But api breaking or not that still doesn't mean anything because if they
use the label "beta5" now and they use that now in production and it works
perfect for them
then that label doesnt say anything.
But i agree if they need a fix then the drop in beta6 or RC or final could
maybe not work.
but i am already in a none api break mode at this time
I still hope that all the refactoring we have done in 1.3 will result in a
much stabler api from now on
For example i don't see the major interfaces like all the model
interfaces/classes change now much anymore.
I guess the same is true for validators/behaviors.
But we never know of course :) igor or matej could just say, i want to
change everything again.
johan
On 10/22/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The difference is that we won't be doing API breaking stuff when the
> final is released.
>
> RC API changes should go through a vote first. At least this is the
> old agreement for 1.2 and older.
>
> So I agree with Eelco that we should go through the list of issues and
> identify which ones are API breaking and which ones can go into the
> next (1.4/1.5/2.0?) release.
>
> Martijn
>
> On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > i think there are no really major showstoppers at the moment. (as far as
> i
> > know)
> > And whats the difference for you if you just take beta5 now and use that
> in
> > your production
> > or if we already called that final? It will be the same kind of code.
> > There isn't anything different then the label we give it..
> >
> > What is importand for you is do all your pages work are you seeing
> > unexpected features?
> >
> > johan
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/21/07, Evan Chooly <ev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > FWIW, i'd love to start seeing RCs. We're shooting for a late
> november
> > > release and I'd *really* like to see something final soon. It makes
> me a
> > > little nervous to be still in beta at this point in our release
> > > cycle. I'm
> > > not complaining, really. I know you guys are busy and are working on
> this
> > > and other things. Just trying to put in my 2 cents in favor of
> cutting a
> > > final release in the absence of any major show stoppers.
> > >
> > > On 10/20/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > i am not aware of any "show-stopping" bugs, so i am ok if the next
> > > > release is an RC1.
> > > >
> > > > -igor
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/20/07, Gerolf Seitz <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > alright, then we should somehow make it official.
> > > > > also to communicate to "potential" users that the final release is
> > > > getting
> > > > > closer.
> > > > >
> > > > > anyway, what do the others think? (weekends are a bad time to have
> a
> > > > lively
> > > > > discussion ;) )
> > > > >
> > > > > Gerolf
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/20/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > i am already in ff mode. except optimalisations like we did this
> few
> > > > > > days. optimisations should always be right after major changes
> and
> > > > > > freezzz
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/20/07, Gerolf Seitz <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On 10/20/07, dtoffe <dt...@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's not about specific bugs, it's this little "beta4"
> that
> > > my
> > > > > > boss
> > > > > > > > don't like. Stable as in "no new features or breaking
> changes"
> > > is
> > > > > > enough,
> > > > > > > > and as some less important bugs are found, some bugfix could
> be
> > > > > > released
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > 1.3.01 for example.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > thank you daniel, that's exactly what i meant. even though
> there
> > > > already
> > > > > > > people using the betas to build great applications,
> > > > > > > a final release could allow even more folks to use wicket and
> thus
> > > a
> > > > > > higher
> > > > > > > adoption and penetration of the market.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > and as johan said:
> > > > > > > > I am really curious what bugs are really stopping people for
> > > using
> > > > the
> > > > > > > current build...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > so how about the feature freeze and 2-3 RCs?
> > > > > > > bugs can be fixed for 1.3.1 and api breaks go directly into
> TNG.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > let's hop on the 1.4-train ;)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Gerolf
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released
> Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/
>
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
The difference is that we won't be doing API breaking stuff when the
final is released.
RC API changes should go through a vote first. At least this is the
old agreement for 1.2 and older.
So I agree with Eelco that we should go through the list of issues and
identify which ones are API breaking and which ones can go into the
next (1.4/1.5/2.0?) release.
Martijn
On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i think there are no really major showstoppers at the moment. (as far as i
> know)
> And whats the difference for you if you just take beta5 now and use that in
> your production
> or if we already called that final? It will be the same kind of code.
> There isn't anything different then the label we give it..
>
> What is importand for you is do all your pages work are you seeing
> unexpected features?
>
> johan
>
>
>
> On 10/21/07, Evan Chooly <ev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, i'd love to start seeing RCs. We're shooting for a late november
> > release and I'd *really* like to see something final soon. It makes me a
> > little nervous to be still in beta at this point in our release
> > cycle. I'm
> > not complaining, really. I know you guys are busy and are working on this
> > and other things. Just trying to put in my 2 cents in favor of cutting a
> > final release in the absence of any major show stoppers.
> >
> > On 10/20/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > i am not aware of any "show-stopping" bugs, so i am ok if the next
> > > release is an RC1.
> > >
> > > -igor
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/20/07, Gerolf Seitz <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > alright, then we should somehow make it official.
> > > > also to communicate to "potential" users that the final release is
> > > getting
> > > > closer.
> > > >
> > > > anyway, what do the others think? (weekends are a bad time to have a
> > > lively
> > > > discussion ;) )
> > > >
> > > > Gerolf
> > > >
> > > > On 10/20/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > i am already in ff mode. except optimalisations like we did this few
> > > > > days. optimisations should always be right after major changes and
> > > > > freezzz
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/20/07, Gerolf Seitz <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On 10/20/07, dtoffe <dt...@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's not about specific bugs, it's this little "beta4" that
> > my
> > > > > boss
> > > > > > > don't like. Stable as in "no new features or breaking changes"
> > is
> > > > > enough,
> > > > > > > and as some less important bugs are found, some bugfix could be
> > > > > released
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > 1.3.01 for example.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thank you daniel, that's exactly what i meant. even though there
> > > already
> > > > > > people using the betas to build great applications,
> > > > > > a final release could allow even more folks to use wicket and thus
> > a
> > > > > higher
> > > > > > adoption and penetration of the market.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and as johan said:
> > > > > > > I am really curious what bugs are really stopping people for
> > using
> > > the
> > > > > > current build...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so how about the feature freeze and 2-3 RCs?
> > > > > > bugs can be fixed for 1.3.1 and api breaks go directly into TNG.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > let's hop on the 1.4-train ;)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gerolf
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i think there are no really major showstoppers at the moment. (as far as i
> know)
> And whats the difference for you if you just take beta5 now and use that in
> your production
> or if we already called that final? It will be the same kind of code.
> There isn't anything different then the label we give it..
>
> What is importand for you is do all your pages work are you seeing
> unexpected features?
Sure, personally I don't care much about the labels (in fact, we're
now running our production server on beta 4, and I'm completely fine
with that), but several people expressed that they (or their bosses)
do care about it. Furthermore, we'll probably still in beta next year
october if we don't start committing ourselves to RCs/ final releases
:-)
Eelco
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>.
i think there are no really major showstoppers at the moment. (as far as i
know)
And whats the difference for you if you just take beta5 now and use that in
your production
or if we already called that final? It will be the same kind of code.
There isn't anything different then the label we give it..
What is importand for you is do all your pages work are you seeing
unexpected features?
johan
On 10/21/07, Evan Chooly <ev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> FWIW, i'd love to start seeing RCs. We're shooting for a late november
> release and I'd *really* like to see something final soon. It makes me a
> little nervous to be still in beta at this point in our release
> cycle. I'm
> not complaining, really. I know you guys are busy and are working on this
> and other things. Just trying to put in my 2 cents in favor of cutting a
> final release in the absence of any major show stoppers.
>
> On 10/20/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > i am not aware of any "show-stopping" bugs, so i am ok if the next
> > release is an RC1.
> >
> > -igor
> >
> >
> > On 10/20/07, Gerolf Seitz <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > alright, then we should somehow make it official.
> > > also to communicate to "potential" users that the final release is
> > getting
> > > closer.
> > >
> > > anyway, what do the others think? (weekends are a bad time to have a
> > lively
> > > discussion ;) )
> > >
> > > Gerolf
> > >
> > > On 10/20/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > i am already in ff mode. except optimalisations like we did this few
> > > > days. optimisations should always be right after major changes and
> > > > freezzz
> > > >
> > > > On 10/20/07, Gerolf Seitz <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 10/20/07, dtoffe <dt...@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's not about specific bugs, it's this little "beta4" that
> my
> > > > boss
> > > > > > don't like. Stable as in "no new features or breaking changes"
> is
> > > > enough,
> > > > > > and as some less important bugs are found, some bugfix could be
> > > > released
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > 1.3.01 for example.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > thank you daniel, that's exactly what i meant. even though there
> > already
> > > > > people using the betas to build great applications,
> > > > > a final release could allow even more folks to use wicket and thus
> a
> > > > higher
> > > > > adoption and penetration of the market.
> > > > >
> > > > > and as johan said:
> > > > > > I am really curious what bugs are really stopping people for
> using
> > the
> > > > > current build...
> > > > >
> > > > > so how about the feature freeze and 2-3 RCs?
> > > > > bugs can be fixed for 1.3.1 and api breaks go directly into TNG.
> > > > >
> > > > > let's hop on the 1.4-train ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > Gerolf
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Evan Chooly <ev...@gmail.com>.
FWIW, i'd love to start seeing RCs. We're shooting for a late november
release and I'd *really* like to see something final soon. It makes me a
little nervous to be still in beta at this point in our release cycle. I'm
not complaining, really. I know you guys are busy and are working on this
and other things. Just trying to put in my 2 cents in favor of cutting a
final release in the absence of any major show stoppers.
On 10/20/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> i am not aware of any "show-stopping" bugs, so i am ok if the next
> release is an RC1.
>
> -igor
>
>
> On 10/20/07, Gerolf Seitz <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > alright, then we should somehow make it official.
> > also to communicate to "potential" users that the final release is
> getting
> > closer.
> >
> > anyway, what do the others think? (weekends are a bad time to have a
> lively
> > discussion ;) )
> >
> > Gerolf
> >
> > On 10/20/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > i am already in ff mode. except optimalisations like we did this few
> > > days. optimisations should always be right after major changes and
> > > freezzz
> > >
> > > On 10/20/07, Gerolf Seitz <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 10/20/07, dtoffe <dt...@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It's not about specific bugs, it's this little "beta4" that my
> > > boss
> > > > > don't like. Stable as in "no new features or breaking changes" is
> > > enough,
> > > > > and as some less important bugs are found, some bugfix could be
> > > released
> > > > > as
> > > > > 1.3.01 for example.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > thank you daniel, that's exactly what i meant. even though there
> already
> > > > people using the betas to build great applications,
> > > > a final release could allow even more folks to use wicket and thus a
> > > higher
> > > > adoption and penetration of the market.
> > > >
> > > > and as johan said:
> > > > > I am really curious what bugs are really stopping people for using
> the
> > > > current build...
> > > >
> > > > so how about the feature freeze and 2-3 RCs?
> > > > bugs can be fixed for 1.3.1 and api breaks go directly into TNG.
> > > >
> > > > let's hop on the 1.4-train ;)
> > > >
> > > > Gerolf
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Watter <ma...@welchkin.net>.
Watter wrote:
>
>
>
> igor.vaynberg wrote:
>>
>> i am not aware of any "show-stopping" bugs, so i am ok if the next
>> release is an RC1.
>>
>
> I'll pipe in as a user here. We have struggled with the markup ID issues
> discussed here:
> http://www.nabble.com/getMarkupId-doesn%27t-return-the-id-from-the-markup-tf3972925.html#a12525507
>
> If this can't be handled in an intuitive manner (i.e. utilizing the ID
> specified in the HTML template) then at the very least, this behavior and
> any workarounds (like the one at
> http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-getMarkupId-doesn%27t-return-the-id-from-the-markup-p12532067.html)
> need to be well documented.
>
> I realize that the way this works may be second nature to you as
> developers of the framework, but you have to understand that from a user's
> point of view it's a complete surprise that we can't reliably specify ID's
> on our HTML elements. I still don't completely understand the technical
> reasons for this, but I do trust that if it were easy to fix, it would
> have already been done. I just need to have a clearly defined set of
> processes that I can point my manager and development team to when they
> encounter this issue. If I fully understood the problem and the solutions,
> I'd create that documentation myself, but unfortunately, I don't. Even
> Matej's workaround that I linked to above doesn't make complete sense to
> me. I think I understand the general goal, but not technically how to
> achieve it.
>
After reading this, I realized it came off a little critical. That certainly
wasn't my intent. I would simply like to have an official list of ways to
deal with the need for custom Javascript and CSS to know about the ID's of
wicket-managed HTML elements. If folks can point me in the direction of some
threads or JIRA issues where this is discussed, I'd be happy to compile that
list myself.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/beta-5-this-weekend--tf4657032.html#a13350830
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>.
look at the TextTemplateHeaderContributor.forJavaScript()
you can then substitute javascript id's with the generated onces.
johan
On 10/22/07, Watter <ma...@welchkin.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Johan Compagner wrote:
> >
> > The only problem is custom javascript. But can't you also parse that
> > javascript also through wicket?
> > and replace the ids at that time?
> >
> What do you mean by parsing the Javascript through Wicket? Perhaps it's
> that
> step that I'm missing and why Matej's explanation went a bit over my head.
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/beta-5-this-weekend--tf4657032.html#a13352358
> Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Watter <ma...@welchkin.net>.
Johan Compagner wrote:
>
> The only problem is custom javascript. But can't you also parse that
> javascript also through wicket?
> and replace the ids at that time?
>
What do you mean by parsing the Javascript through Wicket? Perhaps it's that
step that I'm missing and why Matej's explanation went a bit over my head.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/beta-5-this-weekend--tf4657032.html#a13352358
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>.
i think matej explained it very well in the link you gave in your mail.
The markup id of a component is only know when the component is rendered
in wicket we have 2 phases:
1> request phase (listener phase/component construction phase)
2> response phase (the render phase)
so if you want a markupid in the first phase OR you want a markupid of a
component in the second phase
that is itself not rendered yet. We have to generate it because the markup
is not attached to the component yet
and we don't know the markupid from the html
Also if we get the markup id from the template then we could generate
wrong/invalid html because if you would use
that in a repeater you have 2'or more of the same id.
So why do you need the id? Let the id be generated and use only class for
css
The only problem is custom javascript. But can't you also parse that
javascript also through wicket?
and replace the ids at that time?
johan
On 10/22/07, Watter <ma...@welchkin.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> igor.vaynberg wrote:
> >
> > i am not aware of any "show-stopping" bugs, so i am ok if the next
> > release is an RC1.
> >
>
> I'll pipe in as a user here. We have struggled with the markup ID issues
> discussed here:
>
> http://www.nabble.com/getMarkupId-doesn%27t-return-the-id-from-the-markup-tf3972925.html#a12525507
>
> If this can't be handled in an intuitive manner (i.e. utilizing the ID
> specified in the HTML template) then at the very least, this behavior and
> any workarounds (like the one at
>
> http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-getMarkupId-doesn%27t-return-the-id-from-the-markup-p12532067.html
> )
> need to be well documented.
>
> I realize that the way this works may be second nature to you as
> developers
> of the framework, but you have to understand that from a user's point of
> view it's a complete surprise that we can't reliably specify ID's on our
> HTML elements. I still don't completely understand the technical reasons
> for
> this, but I do trust that if it were easy to fix, it would have already
> been
> done. I just need to have a clearly defined set of processes that I can
> point my manager and development team to when they encounter this issue.
> If
> I fully understood the problem and the solutions, I'd create that
> documentation myself, but unfortunately, I don't. Even Matej's workaround
> that I linked to above doesn't make complete sense to me. I think I
> understand the general goal, but not technically how to achieve it.
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/beta-5-this-weekend--tf4657032.html#a13349276
> Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Watter <ma...@welchkin.net>.
igor.vaynberg wrote:
>
> i am not aware of any "show-stopping" bugs, so i am ok if the next
> release is an RC1.
>
I'll pipe in as a user here. We have struggled with the markup ID issues
discussed here:
http://www.nabble.com/getMarkupId-doesn%27t-return-the-id-from-the-markup-tf3972925.html#a12525507
If this can't be handled in an intuitive manner (i.e. utilizing the ID
specified in the HTML template) then at the very least, this behavior and
any workarounds (like the one at
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-getMarkupId-doesn%27t-return-the-id-from-the-markup-p12532067.html)
need to be well documented.
I realize that the way this works may be second nature to you as developers
of the framework, but you have to understand that from a user's point of
view it's a complete surprise that we can't reliably specify ID's on our
HTML elements. I still don't completely understand the technical reasons for
this, but I do trust that if it were easy to fix, it would have already been
done. I just need to have a clearly defined set of processes that I can
point my manager and development team to when they encounter this issue. If
I fully understood the problem and the solutions, I'd create that
documentation myself, but unfortunately, I don't. Even Matej's workaround
that I linked to above doesn't make complete sense to me. I think I
understand the general goal, but not technically how to achieve it.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/beta-5-this-weekend--tf4657032.html#a13349276
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
i am not aware of any "show-stopping" bugs, so i am ok if the next
release is an RC1.
-igor
On 10/20/07, Gerolf Seitz <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> alright, then we should somehow make it official.
> also to communicate to "potential" users that the final release is getting
> closer.
>
> anyway, what do the others think? (weekends are a bad time to have a lively
> discussion ;) )
>
> Gerolf
>
> On 10/20/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > i am already in ff mode. except optimalisations like we did this few
> > days. optimisations should always be right after major changes and
> > freezzz
> >
> > On 10/20/07, Gerolf Seitz <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 10/20/07, dtoffe <dt...@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's not about specific bugs, it's this little "beta4" that my
> > boss
> > > > don't like. Stable as in "no new features or breaking changes" is
> > enough,
> > > > and as some less important bugs are found, some bugfix could be
> > released
> > > > as
> > > > 1.3.01 for example.
> > > >
> > >
> > > thank you daniel, that's exactly what i meant. even though there already
> > > people using the betas to build great applications,
> > > a final release could allow even more folks to use wicket and thus a
> > higher
> > > adoption and penetration of the market.
> > >
> > > and as johan said:
> > > > I am really curious what bugs are really stopping people for using the
> > > current build...
> > >
> > > so how about the feature freeze and 2-3 RCs?
> > > bugs can be fixed for 1.3.1 and api breaks go directly into TNG.
> > >
> > > let's hop on the 1.4-train ;)
> > >
> > > Gerolf
> > >
> >
>
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Gerolf Seitz <ge...@gmail.com>.
alright, then we should somehow make it official.
also to communicate to "potential" users that the final release is getting
closer.
anyway, what do the others think? (weekends are a bad time to have a lively
discussion ;) )
Gerolf
On 10/20/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> i am already in ff mode. except optimalisations like we did this few
> days. optimisations should always be right after major changes and
> freezzz
>
> On 10/20/07, Gerolf Seitz <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/20/07, dtoffe <dt...@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
> > >
> > > It's not about specific bugs, it's this little "beta4" that my
> boss
> > > don't like. Stable as in "no new features or breaking changes" is
> enough,
> > > and as some less important bugs are found, some bugfix could be
> released
> > > as
> > > 1.3.01 for example.
> > >
> >
> > thank you daniel, that's exactly what i meant. even though there already
> > people using the betas to build great applications,
> > a final release could allow even more folks to use wicket and thus a
> higher
> > adoption and penetration of the market.
> >
> > and as johan said:
> > > I am really curious what bugs are really stopping people for using the
> > current build...
> >
> > so how about the feature freeze and 2-3 RCs?
> > bugs can be fixed for 1.3.1 and api breaks go directly into TNG.
> >
> > let's hop on the 1.4-train ;)
> >
> > Gerolf
> >
>
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>.
i am already in ff mode. except optimalisations like we did this few
days. optimisations should always be right after major changes and
freezzz
On 10/20/07, Gerolf Seitz <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/20/07, dtoffe <dt...@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
> >
> > It's not about specific bugs, it's this little "beta4" that my boss
> > don't like. Stable as in "no new features or breaking changes" is enough,
> > and as some less important bugs are found, some bugfix could be released
> > as
> > 1.3.01 for example.
> >
>
> thank you daniel, that's exactly what i meant. even though there already
> people using the betas to build great applications,
> a final release could allow even more folks to use wicket and thus a higher
> adoption and penetration of the market.
>
> and as johan said:
> > I am really curious what bugs are really stopping people for using the
> current build...
>
> so how about the feature freeze and 2-3 RCs?
> bugs can be fixed for 1.3.1 and api breaks go directly into TNG.
>
> let's hop on the 1.4-train ;)
>
> Gerolf
>
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Gerolf Seitz <ge...@gmail.com>.
On 10/20/07, dtoffe <dt...@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
>
> It's not about specific bugs, it's this little "beta4" that my boss
> don't like. Stable as in "no new features or breaking changes" is enough,
> and as some less important bugs are found, some bugfix could be released
> as
> 1.3.01 for example.
>
thank you daniel, that's exactly what i meant. even though there already
people using the betas to build great applications,
a final release could allow even more folks to use wicket and thus a higher
adoption and penetration of the market.
and as johan said:
> I am really curious what bugs are really stopping people for using the
current build...
so how about the feature freeze and 2-3 RCs?
bugs can be fixed for 1.3.1 and api breaks go directly into TNG.
let's hop on the 1.4-train ;)
Gerolf
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by dtoffe <dt...@yahoo.com.ar>.
Johan Compagner wrote:
>
> We just have to look to the buglist and make sure what is really needed to
> fix for final release
> Not all bugs that are on my list are a real prio for the release of 1.4
>
> I am really curious what bugs are really stopping people for using the
> current build...
>
> johan
>
It's not about specific bugs, it's this little "beta4" that my boss
don't like. Stable as in "no new features or breaking changes" is enough,
and as some less important bugs are found, some bugfix could be released as
1.3.01 for example.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/beta-5-this-weekend--tf4657032.html#a13309313
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>.
We just have to look to the buglist and make sure what is really needed to
fix for final release
Not all bugs that are on my list are a real prio for the release of 1.4
I am really curious what bugs are really stopping people for using the
current build...
johan
On 10/20/07, Gerolf Seitz <ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> generally, i consider releasing more often a good idea.
>
> but shouldn't we also have some kind of (serious) release plan?
> yes, we can say we want to release every two weeks, but when does that
> stop?
> 1.3-0-beta42 ?
> yes, there are bugs and yes they need to be fixed, but at some point we
> need
> to get a clearer picture
> how we want to go on.
> also, what are the constraints for a 1.3.0-final release? all bugs fixed?
> then we should release beta5 and pronounce a feature freeze and get those
> bugs fixed.
>
> i'll come up with a list of bugs that either seem to be fixed (but haven't
> been resolved, verified yet) or are just not valid anymore.
>
> Gerolf
>
> On 10/20/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > fine by me. i dont mind a release every one or two weeks.
> >
> > -igor
> >
> >
> > On 10/19/07, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hey,
> > >
> > > If someone (Frank?) is up to helping me a bit this weekend, how about
> > > putting our beta 5 this weekend. The reason is selfish: we
> > > (Teachscape) are gonna do a big release this weekend, I just fixed an
> > > issue I need, and I also would like to use the memory improvements,
> > > but I don't want to fix on a SNAPSHOT. But it's also a practice round
> > > to see whether we can release more often.
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> > >
> > > Eelco
> > >
> >
>
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Gerolf Seitz <ge...@gmail.com>.
generally, i consider releasing more often a good idea.
but shouldn't we also have some kind of (serious) release plan?
yes, we can say we want to release every two weeks, but when does that stop?
1.3-0-beta42 ?
yes, there are bugs and yes they need to be fixed, but at some point we need
to get a clearer picture
how we want to go on.
also, what are the constraints for a 1.3.0-final release? all bugs fixed?
then we should release beta5 and pronounce a feature freeze and get those
bugs fixed.
i'll come up with a list of bugs that either seem to be fixed (but haven't
been resolved, verified yet) or are just not valid anymore.
Gerolf
On 10/20/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> fine by me. i dont mind a release every one or two weeks.
>
> -igor
>
>
> On 10/19/07, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > If someone (Frank?) is up to helping me a bit this weekend, how about
> > putting our beta 5 this weekend. The reason is selfish: we
> > (Teachscape) are gonna do a big release this weekend, I just fixed an
> > issue I need, and I also would like to use the memory improvements,
> > but I don't want to fix on a SNAPSHOT. But it's also a practice round
> > to see whether we can release more often.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > Eelco
> >
>
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
fine by me. i dont mind a release every one or two weeks.
-igor
On 10/19/07, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> If someone (Frank?) is up to helping me a bit this weekend, how about
> putting our beta 5 this weekend. The reason is selfish: we
> (Teachscape) are gonna do a big release this weekend, I just fixed an
> issue I need, and I also would like to use the memory improvements,
> but I don't want to fix on a SNAPSHOT. But it's also a practice round
> to see whether we can release more often.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Eelco
>
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>.
+1 if frank or martijn can spend the time on this
please release.
On 10/20/07, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> If someone (Frank?) is up to helping me a bit this weekend, how about
> putting our beta 5 this weekend. The reason is selfish: we
> (Teachscape) are gonna do a big release this weekend, I just fixed an
> issue I need, and I also would like to use the memory improvements,
> but I don't want to fix on a SNAPSHOT. But it's also a practice round
> to see whether we can release more often.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Eelco
>
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Frank Bille <fr...@apache.org>.
Sorry for joining in so late. I don't have any time this weekend to do a
release. I have time next weekend (3-4. nov.)
Frank
On 10/20/07, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> If someone (Frank?) is up to helping me a bit this weekend, how about
> putting our beta 5 this weekend. The reason is selfish: we
> (Teachscape) are gonna do a big release this weekend, I just fixed an
> issue I need, and I also would like to use the memory improvements,
> but I don't want to fix on a SNAPSHOT. But it's also a practice round
> to see whether we can release more often.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Eelco
>
Re: beta 5 this weekend?
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
> If someone (Frank?) is up to helping me a bit this weekend, how about
> putting our beta 5 this weekend. The reason is selfish: we
> (Teachscape) are gonna do a big release this weekend, I just fixed an
> issue I need, and I also would like to use the memory improvements,
> but I don't want to fix on a SNAPSHOT. But it's also a practice round
> to see whether we can release more often.
>
> WDYT?
Turned out I've been to busy myself to prepare a release. Sorry about
the noise. For the record - and in reaction of what some people said
on this thread -, I'm all for starting RC soon. I do think we should
first clear the database of any currently known bugs, unless they are
*really* trivial (i.e. acceptable workarounds exists). Someone (or
some) should go through the list, assign versions and determine
whether it is a valid bug or something else (improvement/ feature
request). I think we can bump most feature requests/ improvements to
1.4 and focus on working towards a final release.
Eelco