You think 1.3 is bad? Try 1.1.6. And no, we can't just move off of it. And yes, it is server-side. And no, it's not running Tapestry. I know, off-topic, but not everything is as simple as "make it so" ...
/dev/mrg -----Original Message----- From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Holger Hoffstaette Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 10:38 AM To: tapestry-user@jakarta.apache.org Subject: Re: Tapestry 4.0 is NOT Java 1.3 compliant On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:34:53 +0000, Johny wrote: > At the risk of repeating myself, could I just highlight the issue of 1.3 > compliancy. It was mentioned a few places that Tapestry 4.0 is Java 1.3 > compliant, even thouh some examples are not (using annotations etc.). If you are still using 1.3 for server-side work you practically *deserve* to be ignored by the rest of the world because those VMs are known to have serious deadlock and data corruption bugs. Fire your CTO. I am at a total loss why companies think they can just "decide" that the rest of the world has to freeze just for them. Howard, please start using 1.5 exclusively (if only for util.concurrent) and provide 1.4-compatibility via retrotranslator (http://retrotranslator.sourceforge.net/) which is way better than retroweaver and "just works". -h --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
