We don't use 2.0 at my company, and I don't use it myself for
personal projects, so I'm not too worried
I'm not particularly interested in the constructor change, even if
the comparison to SWT being better than Swing was appealing at
first glance. Didn't you happen to say: « SWT has a much better
design that Swing ». And the parallel to Wicket 1.x/2.0 was easy
to draw.
But as a committer I am very unhappy with having to maintain 2
branches; most of the classes I change are out of sync between 1.x
and trunk. So I'm +1 for having one development branch, JDK 1.4
is fine for me, we'll switch to JDK 1.5 in a few months (or
years?). But beware that some bugfixes and useful new features
went in trunk only, so we should list them and port them to 1.x,
as I [1]already started to do.
Also, I think if we get rid of 2.0, we should never reuse that
version number to avoid any confusion.
--
Jean-Baptiste Quenot
aka John Banana Qwerty
http://caraldi.com/jbq/
[1] http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/To+Sync+Between+Branches
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
