You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@myfaces.apache.org by Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com> on 2005/11/02 18:50:08 UTC
JDK 1.5, JSP 2.0 XML
Speaking of JDK1.5, now that we've released a TCK-compliant JSF 1.1
implementation, and we're looking to the future, should we start
allowing 1.5 syntax in the HEAD ?
I'm also now using .jspx (JSP XML format) exclusively in my own
projects, as it's easier to edit in XML editors and just *looks*
cleaner. Converting our example .jsp s should not be a huge task.
Martin Marinschek wrote:
>@srcs not compiling:
>
>That's Travis working on JDK1.5 who hasn't ensured backwards
>compatibility.
>
Re: JDK 1.5, JSP 2.0 XML
Posted by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>.
Interesting comment.
I do think that it will take some time until JSF1.2 is on our table, right.
I still think that we can implement almost everything that JSF1.2
specifies in MyFaces right away, and even pass the TCK 1.1 this way -
spec people have paid much attention to backwards compatibility. With
the exception of the new unified EL of course.
regards,
Martin
On 11/5/05, Heinz Drews <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I personally would give a f...airly low amount of interest what JSF
> 1.2 requires.
> My revenue is generated from existing customers and not the ones from
> 2007 or later.
> And as I said, they are mostly WebSphere-based where not even a
> roadmap for the use of Java 5 exists. In another case the customer
> uses WebLogic and has a migration plan to get Java 5 ready mid 2006.
> Not even the Geronimo-Project can move to Java 5 now because there is
> no usable CORBA-implementation available.
>
> It might be necessary to tell the specimaniacs to consider the market situation.
> I don't know a good english term for the german clause which literally
> translates to "breadless art". It's nice to have just beauty but
> someone has to pay for it.
>
> If anyhow possible I'm using Retroweaver to get a lot of the Java 5
> benefits without losing the 1.4.x compatibility.
>
> Regards,
> Heinz
>
> On 11/4/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Quite frankly I don't see why JSF 1.2 spec requires it. I know they
> > had their reasons but I am doing just fine with JDK 1.4. I like
> > upgrading just as much as the next guy but 1.4 seems sufficient IMO.
> >
> > sean
> >
> > On 11/4/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > agreed, we can't require java 5 with 1.1 (the spec says 1.4).
> > >
> > > TTFN,
> > >
> > > -bd-
> > >
> > > On Nov 4, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
> > >
> > > > There's no choice in regards to JSF 1.2. JSF 1.2 already requires
> > > > Java 1.5.
> > > > However, I'm definitely against JSF 1.1 requiring Java 1.5.
> > > >
> > > > On 11/4/05, Keith Lynch <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> This is certainly a large issue. Some products still have to
> > > >> support Java
> > > >> 1.3.
> > > >>
> > > >> At ILOG I had major issues when trying to move from RI to MyFaces
> > > >> as it
> > > >> involved a move to 1.4. Thankfully after almost six months I got
> > > >> approval
> > > >> but it was a pain. There are no moves being made because, just a
> > > >> Heinz
> > > >> mentioned, some large customers are still using Application
> > > >> Servers which
> > > >> are limiting. In some cases even as low as Java 1.3. So moving to
> > > >> 1.5 would
> > > >> be a nightmare for now. I think that even doing this with the 1.2
> > > >> release
> > > >> would be unwise.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On 11/3/05, Thomas Spiegl <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>> -1 as well
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 11/2/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> -1 for Java 5.0 (for the time being.)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> sean
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On 11/2/05, Heinz Drews < heinz.drews@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>> I just want to remind that there are still a significant number of
> > > >>>>> sites which cannot move to Java 5 because of restrictions
> > > >>>>> implied by
> > > >>>>> the Application Server used.
> > > >>>>> WebSphere would be here candidate number 1 to be named but I
> > > >>>>> know also
> > > >>>>> a large number of WebLogic sites which cannot migrate to versions
> > > >>>>> supporting Java 5.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> As long the use of Java 5 features would be compensated by using
> > > >>>>> Retroweaver to produce jars working in 1.4.x runtimes I would be
> > > >>>>> happy. If support for the 1.4.x environments would be stopped I
> > > >>>>> foresee some conflicts.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Using Retroweaver is no ideal solution, it would require to
> > > >>>>> provide
> > > >>>>> two parallel jar-structures.
> > > >>>>> But it's better than leaving a lot of sites without a top-level
> > > >>>>> JSF-implementation.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Regards,
> > > >>>>> Heinz
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On 11/2/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> I agree,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> lets wait until we branch then start putting the 5.0 syntax.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> TTFN,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> -bd-
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Nov 2, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Martin Marinschek wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> IMHO: No, we shouldn't.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> as soon as we branch of for 1.2, we will.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> regards,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Martin
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On 11/2/05, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> Speaking of JDK1.5, now that we've released a TCK-compliant JSF
> > > >> 1.1
> > > >>>>>>>> implementation, and we're looking to the future, should we
> > > >>>>>>>> start
> > > >>>>>>>> allowing 1.5 syntax in the HEAD ?
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I'm also now using .jspx (JSP XML format) exclusively in my own
> > > >>>>>>>> projects, as it's easier to edit in XML editors and just
> > > >>>>>>>> *looks*
> > > >>>>>>>> cleaner. Converting our example .jsp s should not be a huge
> > > >>>>>>>> task.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Martin Marinschek wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> @srcs not compiling:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> That's Travis working on JDK1.5 who hasn't ensured backwards
> > > >>>>>>>>> compatibility.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> http://www.irian.at
> > > >>>>>>> Your JSF powerhouse -
> > > >>>>>>> JSF Trainings in English and German
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Trainings in English and German
Re: JDK 1.5, JSP 2.0 XML
Posted by Heinz Drews <he...@gmail.com>.
I personally would give a f...airly low amount of interest what JSF
1.2 requires.
My revenue is generated from existing customers and not the ones from
2007 or later.
And as I said, they are mostly WebSphere-based where not even a
roadmap for the use of Java 5 exists. In another case the customer
uses WebLogic and has a migration plan to get Java 5 ready mid 2006.
Not even the Geronimo-Project can move to Java 5 now because there is
no usable CORBA-implementation available.
It might be necessary to tell the specimaniacs to consider the market situation.
I don't know a good english term for the german clause which literally
translates to "breadless art". It's nice to have just beauty but
someone has to pay for it.
If anyhow possible I'm using Retroweaver to get a lot of the Java 5
benefits without losing the 1.4.x compatibility.
Regards,
Heinz
On 11/4/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Quite frankly I don't see why JSF 1.2 spec requires it. I know they
> had their reasons but I am doing just fine with JDK 1.4. I like
> upgrading just as much as the next guy but 1.4 seems sufficient IMO.
>
> sean
>
> On 11/4/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > agreed, we can't require java 5 with 1.1 (the spec says 1.4).
> >
> > TTFN,
> >
> > -bd-
> >
> > On Nov 4, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
> >
> > > There's no choice in regards to JSF 1.2. JSF 1.2 already requires
> > > Java 1.5.
> > > However, I'm definitely against JSF 1.1 requiring Java 1.5.
> > >
> > > On 11/4/05, Keith Lynch <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> This is certainly a large issue. Some products still have to
> > >> support Java
> > >> 1.3.
> > >>
> > >> At ILOG I had major issues when trying to move from RI to MyFaces
> > >> as it
> > >> involved a move to 1.4. Thankfully after almost six months I got
> > >> approval
> > >> but it was a pain. There are no moves being made because, just a
> > >> Heinz
> > >> mentioned, some large customers are still using Application
> > >> Servers which
> > >> are limiting. In some cases even as low as Java 1.3. So moving to
> > >> 1.5 would
> > >> be a nightmare for now. I think that even doing this with the 1.2
> > >> release
> > >> would be unwise.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 11/3/05, Thomas Spiegl <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> -1 as well
> > >>>
> > >>> On 11/2/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>> -1 for Java 5.0 (for the time being.)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> sean
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 11/2/05, Heinz Drews < heinz.drews@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> I just want to remind that there are still a significant number of
> > >>>>> sites which cannot move to Java 5 because of restrictions
> > >>>>> implied by
> > >>>>> the Application Server used.
> > >>>>> WebSphere would be here candidate number 1 to be named but I
> > >>>>> know also
> > >>>>> a large number of WebLogic sites which cannot migrate to versions
> > >>>>> supporting Java 5.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> As long the use of Java 5 features would be compensated by using
> > >>>>> Retroweaver to produce jars working in 1.4.x runtimes I would be
> > >>>>> happy. If support for the 1.4.x environments would be stopped I
> > >>>>> foresee some conflicts.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Using Retroweaver is no ideal solution, it would require to
> > >>>>> provide
> > >>>>> two parallel jar-structures.
> > >>>>> But it's better than leaving a lot of sites without a top-level
> > >>>>> JSF-implementation.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Regards,
> > >>>>> Heinz
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 11/2/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>> I agree,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> lets wait until we branch then start putting the 5.0 syntax.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> TTFN,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> -bd-
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Nov 2, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Martin Marinschek wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> IMHO: No, we shouldn't.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> as soon as we branch of for 1.2, we will.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> regards,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Martin
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On 11/2/05, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Speaking of JDK1.5, now that we've released a TCK-compliant JSF
> > >> 1.1
> > >>>>>>>> implementation, and we're looking to the future, should we
> > >>>>>>>> start
> > >>>>>>>> allowing 1.5 syntax in the HEAD ?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I'm also now using .jspx (JSP XML format) exclusively in my own
> > >>>>>>>> projects, as it's easier to edit in XML editors and just
> > >>>>>>>> *looks*
> > >>>>>>>> cleaner. Converting our example .jsp s should not be a huge
> > >>>>>>>> task.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Martin Marinschek wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> @srcs not compiling:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> That's Travis working on JDK1.5 who hasn't ensured backwards
> > >>>>>>>>> compatibility.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> http://www.irian.at
> > >>>>>>> Your JSF powerhouse -
> > >>>>>>> JSF Trainings in English and German
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
Re: JDK 1.5, JSP 2.0 XML
Posted by Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>.
Quite frankly I don't see why JSF 1.2 spec requires it. I know they
had their reasons but I am doing just fine with JDK 1.4. I like
upgrading just as much as the next guy but 1.4 seems sufficient IMO.
sean
On 11/4/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> agreed, we can't require java 5 with 1.1 (the spec says 1.4).
>
> TTFN,
>
> -bd-
>
> On Nov 4, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
>
> > There's no choice in regards to JSF 1.2. JSF 1.2 already requires
> > Java 1.5.
> > However, I'm definitely against JSF 1.1 requiring Java 1.5.
> >
> > On 11/4/05, Keith Lynch <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> This is certainly a large issue. Some products still have to
> >> support Java
> >> 1.3.
> >>
> >> At ILOG I had major issues when trying to move from RI to MyFaces
> >> as it
> >> involved a move to 1.4. Thankfully after almost six months I got
> >> approval
> >> but it was a pain. There are no moves being made because, just a
> >> Heinz
> >> mentioned, some large customers are still using Application
> >> Servers which
> >> are limiting. In some cases even as low as Java 1.3. So moving to
> >> 1.5 would
> >> be a nightmare for now. I think that even doing this with the 1.2
> >> release
> >> would be unwise.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11/3/05, Thomas Spiegl <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> -1 as well
> >>>
> >>> On 11/2/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> -1 for Java 5.0 (for the time being.)
> >>>>
> >>>> sean
> >>>>
> >>>> On 11/2/05, Heinz Drews < heinz.drews@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> I just want to remind that there are still a significant number of
> >>>>> sites which cannot move to Java 5 because of restrictions
> >>>>> implied by
> >>>>> the Application Server used.
> >>>>> WebSphere would be here candidate number 1 to be named but I
> >>>>> know also
> >>>>> a large number of WebLogic sites which cannot migrate to versions
> >>>>> supporting Java 5.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As long the use of Java 5 features would be compensated by using
> >>>>> Retroweaver to produce jars working in 1.4.x runtimes I would be
> >>>>> happy. If support for the 1.4.x environments would be stopped I
> >>>>> foresee some conflicts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Using Retroweaver is no ideal solution, it would require to
> >>>>> provide
> >>>>> two parallel jar-structures.
> >>>>> But it's better than leaving a lot of sites without a top-level
> >>>>> JSF-implementation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Heinz
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 11/2/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> I agree,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> lets wait until we branch then start putting the 5.0 syntax.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> TTFN,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -bd-
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Nov 2, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Martin Marinschek wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> IMHO: No, we shouldn't.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> as soon as we branch of for 1.2, we will.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> regards,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Martin
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 11/2/05, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Speaking of JDK1.5, now that we've released a TCK-compliant JSF
> >> 1.1
> >>>>>>>> implementation, and we're looking to the future, should we
> >>>>>>>> start
> >>>>>>>> allowing 1.5 syntax in the HEAD ?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'm also now using .jspx (JSP XML format) exclusively in my own
> >>>>>>>> projects, as it's easier to edit in XML editors and just
> >>>>>>>> *looks*
> >>>>>>>> cleaner. Converting our example .jsp s should not be a huge
> >>>>>>>> task.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Martin Marinschek wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> @srcs not compiling:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> That's Travis working on JDK1.5 who hasn't ensured backwards
> >>>>>>>>> compatibility.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://www.irian.at
> >>>>>>> Your JSF powerhouse -
> >>>>>>> JSF Trainings in English and German
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: JDK 1.5, JSP 2.0 XML
Posted by Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com>.
agreed, we can't require java 5 with 1.1 (the spec says 1.4).
TTFN,
-bd-
On Nov 4, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
> There's no choice in regards to JSF 1.2. JSF 1.2 already requires
> Java 1.5.
> However, I'm definitely against JSF 1.1 requiring Java 1.5.
>
> On 11/4/05, Keith Lynch <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is certainly a large issue. Some products still have to
>> support Java
>> 1.3.
>>
>> At ILOG I had major issues when trying to move from RI to MyFaces
>> as it
>> involved a move to 1.4. Thankfully after almost six months I got
>> approval
>> but it was a pain. There are no moves being made because, just a
>> Heinz
>> mentioned, some large customers are still using Application
>> Servers which
>> are limiting. In some cases even as low as Java 1.3. So moving to
>> 1.5 would
>> be a nightmare for now. I think that even doing this with the 1.2
>> release
>> would be unwise.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/3/05, Thomas Spiegl <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> -1 as well
>>>
>>> On 11/2/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> -1 for Java 5.0 (for the time being.)
>>>>
>>>> sean
>>>>
>>>> On 11/2/05, Heinz Drews < heinz.drews@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I just want to remind that there are still a significant number of
>>>>> sites which cannot move to Java 5 because of restrictions
>>>>> implied by
>>>>> the Application Server used.
>>>>> WebSphere would be here candidate number 1 to be named but I
>>>>> know also
>>>>> a large number of WebLogic sites which cannot migrate to versions
>>>>> supporting Java 5.
>>>>>
>>>>> As long the use of Java 5 features would be compensated by using
>>>>> Retroweaver to produce jars working in 1.4.x runtimes I would be
>>>>> happy. If support for the 1.4.x environments would be stopped I
>>>>> foresee some conflicts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Using Retroweaver is no ideal solution, it would require to
>>>>> provide
>>>>> two parallel jar-structures.
>>>>> But it's better than leaving a lot of sites without a top-level
>>>>> JSF-implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Heinz
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/2/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I agree,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> lets wait until we branch then start putting the 5.0 syntax.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TTFN,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -bd-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 2, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Martin Marinschek wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IMHO: No, we shouldn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> as soon as we branch of for 1.2, we will.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/2/05, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Speaking of JDK1.5, now that we've released a TCK-compliant JSF
>> 1.1
>>>>>>>> implementation, and we're looking to the future, should we
>>>>>>>> start
>>>>>>>> allowing 1.5 syntax in the HEAD ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm also now using .jspx (JSP XML format) exclusively in my own
>>>>>>>> projects, as it's easier to edit in XML editors and just
>>>>>>>> *looks*
>>>>>>>> cleaner. Converting our example .jsp s should not be a huge
>>>>>>>> task.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Martin Marinschek wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> @srcs not compiling:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's Travis working on JDK1.5 who hasn't ensured backwards
>>>>>>>>> compatibility.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.irian.at
>>>>>>> Your JSF powerhouse -
>>>>>>> JSF Trainings in English and German
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Re: JDK 1.5, JSP 2.0 XML
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
There's no choice in regards to JSF 1.2. JSF 1.2 already requires Java 1.5.
However, I'm definitely against JSF 1.1 requiring Java 1.5.
On 11/4/05, Keith Lynch <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is certainly a large issue. Some products still have to support Java
> 1.3.
>
> At ILOG I had major issues when trying to move from RI to MyFaces as it
> involved a move to 1.4. Thankfully after almost six months I got approval
> but it was a pain. There are no moves being made because, just a Heinz
> mentioned, some large customers are still using Application Servers which
> are limiting. In some cases even as low as Java 1.3. So moving to 1.5 would
> be a nightmare for now. I think that even doing this with the 1.2 release
> would be unwise.
>
>
>
>
> On 11/3/05, Thomas Spiegl <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > -1 as well
> >
> > On 11/2/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > -1 for Java 5.0 (for the time being.)
> > >
> > > sean
> > >
> > > On 11/2/05, Heinz Drews < heinz.drews@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I just want to remind that there are still a significant number of
> > > > sites which cannot move to Java 5 because of restrictions implied by
> > > > the Application Server used.
> > > > WebSphere would be here candidate number 1 to be named but I know also
> > > > a large number of WebLogic sites which cannot migrate to versions
> > > > supporting Java 5.
> > > >
> > > > As long the use of Java 5 features would be compensated by using
> > > > Retroweaver to produce jars working in 1.4.x runtimes I would be
> > > > happy. If support for the 1.4.x environments would be stopped I
> > > > foresee some conflicts.
> > > >
> > > > Using Retroweaver is no ideal solution, it would require to provide
> > > > two parallel jar-structures.
> > > > But it's better than leaving a lot of sites without a top-level
> > > > JSF-implementation.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Heinz
> > > >
> > > > On 11/2/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > I agree,
> > > > >
> > > > > lets wait until we branch then start putting the 5.0 syntax.
> > > > >
> > > > > TTFN,
> > > > >
> > > > > -bd-
> > > > >
> > > > > On Nov 2, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Martin Marinschek wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > IMHO: No, we shouldn't.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > as soon as we branch of for 1.2, we will.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Martin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 11/2/05, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> Speaking of JDK1.5, now that we've released a TCK-compliant JSF
> 1.1
> > > > > >> implementation, and we're looking to the future, should we start
> > > > > >> allowing 1.5 syntax in the HEAD ?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I'm also now using .jspx (JSP XML format) exclusively in my own
> > > > > >> projects, as it's easier to edit in XML editors and just *looks*
> > > > > >> cleaner. Converting our example .jsp s should not be a huge task.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Martin Marinschek wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> @srcs not compiling:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> That's Travis working on JDK1.5 who hasn't ensured backwards
> > > > > >>> compatibility.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.irian.at
> > > > > > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > > > > > JSF Trainings in English and German
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Re: JDK 1.5, JSP 2.0 XML
Posted by Keith Lynch <re...@gmail.com>.
This is certainly a large issue. Some products still have to support Java
1.3.
At ILOG I had major issues when trying to move from RI to MyFaces as it
involved a move to 1.4. Thankfully after almost six months I got approval
but it was a pain. There are no moves being made because, just a Heinz
mentioned, some large customers are still using Application Servers which
are limiting. In some cases even as low as Java 1.3. So moving to 1.5 would
be a nightmare for now. I think that even doing this with the 1.2 release
would be unwise.
On 11/3/05, Thomas Spiegl <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> -1 as well
>
> On 11/2/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > -1 for Java 5.0 (for the time being.)
> >
> > sean
> >
> > On 11/2/05, Heinz Drews <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I just want to remind that there are still a significant number of
> > > sites which cannot move to Java 5 because of restrictions implied by
> > > the Application Server used.
> > > WebSphere would be here candidate number 1 to be named but I know also
> > > a large number of WebLogic sites which cannot migrate to versions
> > > supporting Java 5.
> > >
> > > As long the use of Java 5 features would be compensated by using
> > > Retroweaver to produce jars working in 1.4.x runtimes I would be
> > > happy. If support for the 1.4.x environments would be stopped I
> > > foresee some conflicts.
> > >
> > > Using Retroweaver is no ideal solution, it would require to provide
> > > two parallel jar-structures.
> > > But it's better than leaving a lot of sites without a top-level
> > > JSF-implementation.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Heinz
> > >
> > > On 11/2/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > I agree,
> > > >
> > > > lets wait until we branch then start putting the 5.0 syntax.
> > > >
> > > > TTFN,
> > > >
> > > > -bd-
> > > >
> > > > On Nov 2, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Martin Marinschek wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > IMHO: No, we shouldn't.
> > > > >
> > > > > as soon as we branch of for 1.2, we will.
> > > > >
> > > > > regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Martin
> > > > >
> > > > > On 11/2/05, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com> wrote:
> > > > >> Speaking of JDK1.5, now that we've released a TCK-compliant JSF
> 1.1
> > > > >> implementation, and we're looking to the future, should we start
> > > > >> allowing 1.5 syntax in the HEAD ?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'm also now using .jspx (JSP XML format) exclusively in my own
> > > > >> projects, as it's easier to edit in XML editors and just *looks*
> > > > >> cleaner. Converting our example .jsp s should not be a huge task.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Martin Marinschek wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> @srcs not compiling:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> That's Travis working on JDK1.5 who hasn't ensured backwards
> > > > >>> compatibility.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.irian.at
> > > > > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > > > > JSF Trainings in English and German
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: JDK 1.5, JSP 2.0 XML
Posted by Thomas Spiegl <th...@gmail.com>.
-1 as well
On 11/2/05, Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -1 for Java 5.0 (for the time being.)
>
> sean
>
> On 11/2/05, Heinz Drews <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I just want to remind that there are still a significant number of
> > sites which cannot move to Java 5 because of restrictions implied by
> > the Application Server used.
> > WebSphere would be here candidate number 1 to be named but I know also
> > a large number of WebLogic sites which cannot migrate to versions
> > supporting Java 5.
> >
> > As long the use of Java 5 features would be compensated by using
> > Retroweaver to produce jars working in 1.4.x runtimes I would be
> > happy. If support for the 1.4.x environments would be stopped I
> > foresee some conflicts.
> >
> > Using Retroweaver is no ideal solution, it would require to provide
> > two parallel jar-structures.
> > But it's better than leaving a lot of sites without a top-level
> > JSF-implementation.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Heinz
> >
> > On 11/2/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > I agree,
> > >
> > > lets wait until we branch then start putting the 5.0 syntax.
> > >
> > > TTFN,
> > >
> > > -bd-
> > >
> > > On Nov 2, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Martin Marinschek wrote:
> > >
> > > > IMHO: No, we shouldn't.
> > > >
> > > > as soon as we branch of for 1.2, we will.
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > >
> > > > Martin
> > > >
> > > > On 11/2/05, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com> wrote:
> > > >> Speaking of JDK1.5, now that we've released a TCK-compliant JSF 1.1
> > > >> implementation, and we're looking to the future, should we start
> > > >> allowing 1.5 syntax in the HEAD ?
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm also now using .jspx (JSP XML format) exclusively in my own
> > > >> projects, as it's easier to edit in XML editors and just *looks*
> > > >> cleaner. Converting our example .jsp s should not be a huge task.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Martin Marinschek wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> @srcs not compiling:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That's Travis working on JDK1.5 who hasn't ensured backwards
> > > >>> compatibility.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > http://www.irian.at
> > > > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > > > JSF Trainings in English and German
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: JDK 1.5, JSP 2.0 XML
Posted by Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>.
-1 for Java 5.0 (for the time being.)
sean
On 11/2/05, Heinz Drews <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just want to remind that there are still a significant number of
> sites which cannot move to Java 5 because of restrictions implied by
> the Application Server used.
> WebSphere would be here candidate number 1 to be named but I know also
> a large number of WebLogic sites which cannot migrate to versions
> supporting Java 5.
>
> As long the use of Java 5 features would be compensated by using
> Retroweaver to produce jars working in 1.4.x runtimes I would be
> happy. If support for the 1.4.x environments would be stopped I
> foresee some conflicts.
>
> Using Retroweaver is no ideal solution, it would require to provide
> two parallel jar-structures.
> But it's better than leaving a lot of sites without a top-level
> JSF-implementation.
>
> Regards,
> Heinz
>
> On 11/2/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > I agree,
> >
> > lets wait until we branch then start putting the 5.0 syntax.
> >
> > TTFN,
> >
> > -bd-
> >
> > On Nov 2, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Martin Marinschek wrote:
> >
> > > IMHO: No, we shouldn't.
> > >
> > > as soon as we branch of for 1.2, we will.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > Martin
> > >
> > > On 11/2/05, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com> wrote:
> > >> Speaking of JDK1.5, now that we've released a TCK-compliant JSF 1.1
> > >> implementation, and we're looking to the future, should we start
> > >> allowing 1.5 syntax in the HEAD ?
> > >>
> > >> I'm also now using .jspx (JSP XML format) exclusively in my own
> > >> projects, as it's easier to edit in XML editors and just *looks*
> > >> cleaner. Converting our example .jsp s should not be a huge task.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Martin Marinschek wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> @srcs not compiling:
> > >>>
> > >>> That's Travis working on JDK1.5 who hasn't ensured backwards
> > >>> compatibility.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > http://www.irian.at
> > > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > > JSF Trainings in English and German
> >
> >
>
Re: JDK 1.5, JSP 2.0 XML
Posted by Heinz Drews <he...@gmail.com>.
I just want to remind that there are still a significant number of
sites which cannot move to Java 5 because of restrictions implied by
the Application Server used.
WebSphere would be here candidate number 1 to be named but I know also
a large number of WebLogic sites which cannot migrate to versions
supporting Java 5.
As long the use of Java 5 features would be compensated by using
Retroweaver to produce jars working in 1.4.x runtimes I would be
happy. If support for the 1.4.x environments would be stopped I
foresee some conflicts.
Using Retroweaver is no ideal solution, it would require to provide
two parallel jar-structures.
But it's better than leaving a lot of sites without a top-level
JSF-implementation.
Regards,
Heinz
On 11/2/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> I agree,
>
> lets wait until we branch then start putting the 5.0 syntax.
>
> TTFN,
>
> -bd-
>
> On Nov 2, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Martin Marinschek wrote:
>
> > IMHO: No, we shouldn't.
> >
> > as soon as we branch of for 1.2, we will.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On 11/2/05, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com> wrote:
> >> Speaking of JDK1.5, now that we've released a TCK-compliant JSF 1.1
> >> implementation, and we're looking to the future, should we start
> >> allowing 1.5 syntax in the HEAD ?
> >>
> >> I'm also now using .jspx (JSP XML format) exclusively in my own
> >> projects, as it's easier to edit in XML editors and just *looks*
> >> cleaner. Converting our example .jsp s should not be a huge task.
> >>
> >>
> >> Martin Marinschek wrote:
> >>
> >>> @srcs not compiling:
> >>>
> >>> That's Travis working on JDK1.5 who hasn't ensured backwards
> >>> compatibility.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > http://www.irian.at
> > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > JSF Trainings in English and German
>
>
Re: JDK 1.5, JSP 2.0 XML
Posted by Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com>.
I agree,
lets wait until we branch then start putting the 5.0 syntax.
TTFN,
-bd-
On Nov 2, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Martin Marinschek wrote:
> IMHO: No, we shouldn't.
>
> as soon as we branch of for 1.2, we will.
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> On 11/2/05, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com> wrote:
>> Speaking of JDK1.5, now that we've released a TCK-compliant JSF 1.1
>> implementation, and we're looking to the future, should we start
>> allowing 1.5 syntax in the HEAD ?
>>
>> I'm also now using .jspx (JSP XML format) exclusively in my own
>> projects, as it's easier to edit in XML editors and just *looks*
>> cleaner. Converting our example .jsp s should not be a huge task.
>>
>>
>> Martin Marinschek wrote:
>>
>>> @srcs not compiling:
>>>
>>> That's Travis working on JDK1.5 who hasn't ensured backwards
>>> compatibility.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> http://www.irian.at
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Trainings in English and German
Re: JDK 1.5, JSP 2.0 XML
Posted by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>.
IMHO: No, we shouldn't.
as soon as we branch of for 1.2, we will.
regards,
Martin
On 11/2/05, Grant Smith <gr...@marathon-man.com> wrote:
> Speaking of JDK1.5, now that we've released a TCK-compliant JSF 1.1
> implementation, and we're looking to the future, should we start
> allowing 1.5 syntax in the HEAD ?
>
> I'm also now using .jspx (JSP XML format) exclusively in my own
> projects, as it's easier to edit in XML editors and just *looks*
> cleaner. Converting our example .jsp s should not be a huge task.
>
>
> Martin Marinschek wrote:
>
> >@srcs not compiling:
> >
> >That's Travis working on JDK1.5 who hasn't ensured backwards
> >compatibility.
> >
>
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Trainings in English and German