+1 I guess Please say if I've understood it correctly. By this proposal: - wicket (from the 1.4 perspective) will be split into three modules, wicket-core, wicket-util, wicket-request; - a 'new' wicket.jar will be created to aggregate the three (well, just like the 'old' wicket.jar), easing migration.
That would be nice. In maven projects, should we add 'wicket' or 'wicket-core'+'wicket-util'+'wicket-request' as dependencies? If we use 'wicket', will it add only one jar to WEB-INF/lib, or will it just be a 'dependency alias', and the other three jars will be added as transitive dependencies? Tetsuo On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Juergen Donnerstag <juergen.donners...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > Juergen > > On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org> > wrote: >> +1 to rename current wicket to wicket-core >> >> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Igor Vaynberg >> <igor.vaynb...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> +1 to rename current wicket into wicket-core >>> >>> -igor >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > With https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-3261 I added a new >>> Maven >>> > module to 1.5: wicket-core. >>> > Its purpose is to create a .jar that contains the classes from >>> wicket.jar, >>> > wicket-util.jar and wicket-request.jar (aka uberjar, jarjar, ...). >>> > >>> > We split wicket/ to three modules : wicket/, wicket-util and >>> wicket-request >>> > to make it more modular and easier to maintain, but now (non-Maven) users >>> > complain about class loading problems because they didn't add -util and >>> > -request in their classpath. >>> > The purpose of the new module is to hide the fact that we split the code >>> > internally and tell all users to use the new uberjar. >>> > We can even not publish the smaller ones in the Maven repos. >>> > >>> > The open question is: should we rename current wicket module to >>> wicket-core >>> > and the new module to become 'wicket' ? >>> > Pros: >>> > - all user apps will continue to have dependency to >>> > org.apache.wicket:wicket >>> > Cons: >>> > - merging code from 1.4 to 1.5 can become a bit harder >>> > >>> > If we agree on that renaming of the modules then I need a date when other >>> > devs don't commit anything to do it. >>> > >>> > martin-g >>> > >>> >> >
