On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Jeremy Thomerson <jer...@wickettraining.com > wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Jeremy Thomerson < > jer...@wickettraining.com > > wrote: > > > 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. > you need to change the dependency <type> to 'pom' I'll check it later. >> > >> [ ] - 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. > > > > It seems so far that most are in agreement with this. I tried to do this > briefly tonight, but apparently my Maven foo isn't high enough. If anyone > wants to try it out, feel free. You can see a diff of what I tried at [1]. > I tried several variations, but I think I have a core problem with the > approach. Basically, I figured that I could make the wicket module a > pom-only project that listed a dependency on -core. Later, a dependency on > -html could exist if that were created. -core brings with it -util and > -request. > > Then, I changed all other modules that were depending on -core to depend on > plain "wicket". But, that didn't work. They kept looking for > "wicket.jar", > even though I wasn't building a jar. I tried several variations of making > it a pom-only project, but perhaps this approach won't work at all. I > haven't ever tried this sort of thing before with Maven. Feel free to give > me a tip, or a working patch :) > > [1] - http://mysticpaste.com/view/4881/text (trying out Lombardi's paste > tool.... you need a "unified diff" colorizer :) > > -- > Jeremy Thomerson > http://wickettraining.com > *Need a CMS for Wicket? Use Brix! http://brixcms.org* >
