Why is that? There are still problems with the first three artifacts being uploaded to maven central.
On Aug 16, 2011, at 4:21 PM, Andreas Pieber wrote: > I think it will be better to integrate them into a forth artifact > wicket.jar. This will make it easier to integrate wicket-osgi tomorrow :-) > On Aug 16, 2011 10:18 PM, "Brian Topping" <[email protected]> wrote: >> There are definitely a number of ways to go about it. What I am > considering at the moment is that the build will proceed normally for -util > and -request, but set the deploy plugin to not deploy for those first two. > Then -core will integrate the contents of the other two (from local > repository only) and allow the deploy plugin to operate normally. >> >> On Aug 16, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Martin Grigorov wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Andreas Pieber <[email protected]> > wrote: >>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 21:22, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Indeed it is Maven problem. We (Wicket devs) want to keep the code >>>>> clean and that's why the old wicket.jar from 1.4 has been split in >>>>> three modules. The goal is that -util classes are just utilities, they >>>>> should not know about Application, RequestCycle, Session, etc. >>>>> -request can use the classes from -util but again should not see >>>>> Application, RequestCycle, Session, etc. >>>>> The best solution for both devs and users I think would be if Maven >>>>> supported the scenario where you have several modules which depend on >>>>> each other but should not be installed/deployed in local/remote repos. >>>>> If this was/is possible then we can merge those sub-modules at install >>>>> time in wicket.jar again and everything will be the same from user >>>>> perspective. But AFAIK it is not possible to tell Maven to not >>>>> install/deploy modules. >>>>> Maybe we can solve that with a second pom.xml - one pom.xml for >>>>> developers and another for official builds. >>>>> >>>> >>>> This could be also done in one pom. Still one option would be to still >>>> deploy them AND repackage them (into e.g. wicket.jar). I think this is > the >>>> same (or at least very similar) to what Brian has in mind :-) >>>> >>>> >>>>> We have different understanding about "get into wicket" :-) >>>>> You want to put the new classes in wicket-core and I prefer to put >>>>> them in o.a.w:wicket-osgi:jar which still will be part of Wicket >>>>> distro and will be used only by users who deploy apps in OSGi >>>>> containers. So you can develop in wicketstuff/wicket-osgi and when >>>>> ready we can just adopt it in Wicket. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No we're not :-) I just want to name all options. If it is really only > the >>>> problem of repackaging we can add wicket-osgi and pack wicket-osgi, > core, >>>> request and util into one wicket.jar. This one can deploy without any >>>> problem (and although there are (optional) osgi deps to any j2ee server > AND >>>> on any osgi environment. If someone is really caring about the ten >>>> additional osgi classes never used he can still use core, util and > request; >>>> otherwise the repacked wicket.jar will also do. >>> Not sure what Brian has in mind but the idea is to not deploy -util, >>> -request and -core in Maven Cental repo. >>> Those should be something which stays in Wicket's kitchen. Maven will >>> use them to build the uber jar (wicket.jar) which will be deployed >>> with the proper OSGi headers in Maven repos and used by users. >>> Only Wicker devs will know about -util, -request, -core, >>> -whatever-we-split-later... >>> >>> The same can be achieved with CheckStyle but this is a different topic. >>>> >>>> The reason why I would like to work in a fork is NOT core util and > request. >>>> We do not have to change anything there. BUT for e.g. spring we'll have > to. >>>> And I don't think that we want to play the same game there again > (additional >>>> package and repacking). This sounds ways overpowered for about 2-3 >>>> additional classes. >>>> >>>> >>>>> But I guess it is a matter of 10 files or so, so there is not big >>>>> difference. >>>>> In both cases I'd like to have some tests which will verify that OSGi >>>>> stuff still works for the next release. Maybe integration tests ?! >>>>> >>>> >>>> No discussion about this. While pax-wicket might not have the highest >>>> unit-test coverage I've about 87% coverage by integration tests. > Pax-Exam in >>>> combination with Tiny-Bundle and HTML-Unit is extremly useful such >>>> situations. So there will be enough tests that you know immediately if > any >>>> change breaks the osgi integration :-) >>>> >>>> I'm a little bit busy tomorrow morning but I'll start tomorrow evening >>>> providing first ideas in a wicket fork based on Brian's implementation. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> Andreas >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I cannot >>>>>>> decide that by myself. I have just a single vote. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Of cause; that's why we/I discuss this here in public to reach as many >>>>>> wicket devs as possible :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I personally don't like the approach "merge -util, -request and -core >>>>>>> into wicket.jar (as in Wicket 1.4) and put the additional OSGi > related >>>>>>> code there too. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In that way I think the following solution might be more interesting > for >>>>>> you: use the split-package approach to osgify all three jars and add > an >>>>>> additional wicket-osgi package containing all the osgi specific code. >>>>> I've >>>>>> already taken a quick look at guice and spring and although there are >>>>> some >>>>>> additions required I think they can be included directly in those >>>>>> "side-projects". Does this sound interesting for you? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> No matter what you decide I'll be glad to help you! >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you very much Martin! >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>> Andreas >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Andreas Pieber <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Hey Martin, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think this is more kind of a principle question. Yes, it is > possible >>>>> to >>>>>>>> keep this all in wicketstuff/pax-wicket. We can also fork wicket and >>>>>>>> implement osgi support there. Or I can use maven to adapt and >>>>>>>> overwrite/repack wicket in pax-wicket as required. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So again, this thread isn't about what can be done, but rather what >>>>>>> should >>>>>>>> be done. What is the best for wicket and what is the best for osgi. >>>>>>> Wicket >>>>>>>> can become THE webframework for osgi. As long as we do not commit to >>>>> the >>>>>>>> goal of making wicket a first class osgi framework (but rather work > in >>>>>>>> pax-wicket/wicket stuff) people will always have the feeling that >>>>> there >>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> only minor interests into supporting osgi and eg move on to vaadin. >>>>> IMHO >>>>>>>> this could not be the goal of such a great framework as wicket. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OK back to the main topic of this thread. I understand that wicket > 1.5 >>>>> is >>>>>>>> already on its way and that you do not want to add anything "new and >>>>>>>> possible dangerous" to the release. On the other hand i've collected >>>>> tons >>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> experience in the past half year developing pax-wicket. As a karaf > pmc >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> technical architect of various other open and closed source osgi > i've >>>>>>>> collected enough experience to be sure that we can also introduce > osgi >>>>>>>> support in e.g 1.5.1. There will be extensions to the manifest.mf, >>>>>>>> activators, bundle and service listeners. Also changes to the class >>>>>>> loading >>>>>>>> at various places, but I promise that none of those changes will >>>>> effect >>>>>>>> wicket runtime in a j2ee server. If this is not the idea we can also >>>>>>> start >>>>>>>> adding osgi support from the first 1.6.0-SNAPSHOT packages. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I really want to do this in a public non-intrusive way presenting > the >>>>>>>> possible options we have per move giving you the option to add all >>>>>>> concerns >>>>>>>> you have. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From this point of view, if you want users to "reference" only >>>>>>> wicket-core >>>>>>>> option two is the way to go. In case you want them to reference >>>>>>> everything >>>>>>>> option one is the one to go. If you want to provide an all package >>>>> anyhow >>>>>>> 3 >>>>>>>> is the right one. Depending on this we can provide an implementation >>>>> in a >>>>>>>> fork on github and further discuss advantages/disadvantages. WDYT? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kind regards, Andreas >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Martin Grigorov >>>>>>> jWeekend >>>>>>> Training, Consulting, Development >>>>>>> http://jWeekend.com >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Martin Grigorov >>>>> jWeekend >>>>> Training, Consulting, Development >>>>> http://jWeekend.com >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Martin Grigorov >>> jWeekend >>> Training, Consulting, Development >>> http://jWeekend.com >>> >>
