On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Jeremy Thomerson <jer...@wickettraining.com > wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Igor Vaynberg <igor.vaynb...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> what if we factor out html packages out of core? core wont have a >> dependency on them. then all people will have to change from >> wicket-core to wicket-html. the "wicket" module serves as a "standard >> wicket profile" which is everything you need to run on a servlet >> container and build web apps. >> > > Gotcha. So, please cast a vote (this is not an official vote thread, but I > want to get the feelings on this) for one of the following two methods of > handling this: > > [ ] - Just forget about the aggregated wicket.jar and modify the wicket > module a pom-only module. This means Maven users can eternally depend on > wicket only, and not care about how we (re-)structure our code. Non-maven > users will have to download all the separate jars, or use Ivy, or whatever. > > [ ] - Make an aggregated jar for classes, one for sources, and one for > javadocs. This means that people can accidentally end up in classpath > nightmares by having multiple duplicate classes on their classpath. It > helps non-Maven users by making a single jar download. > > -- > Jeremy Thomerson > http://wickettraining.com > *Need a CMS for Wicket? Use Brix! http://brixcms.org* > > > I'm +1 for this one: [+1] - Just forget about the aggregated wicket.jar and modify the wicket module a pom-only module. This means Maven users can eternally depend on wicket only, and not care about how we (re-)structure our code. Non-maven users will have to download all the separate jars, or use Ivy, or whatever. -- Jeremy Thomerson http://wickettraining.com *Need a CMS for Wicket? Use Brix! http://brixcms.org*
