-1, sounds very confusing to me. I was just looking for something last night in the source. It was something that I assumed would be in the "core" of the framework, but I had to look in wicket-util for it. I don't like that. If it's required to run Wicket, then it should be part of the "core."
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:53 AM, 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 >
