If we rename wicket to wicket-core what will be the name of the _current_ wicket-core module?
Am 22.12.2010 um 12:33 schrieb Martin Grigorov: > Hi, > > On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:27 PM, tetsuo <ronald.tet...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> +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. >> > Correct. > >> >> 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? >> > > Your project will depend on 'wicket'. > It is possible to depend on 'wicket-core' too and '-util' and '-request' > will come as transitive deps. But as I said in my first mail we may consider > to *not* deploy -core, -util and -request in official Maven repos. > >> >> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
