Does it deserve a ticket so users know about the new feature ? Martin Grigorov Freelancer. Available for hire! Wicket Training and Consulting https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:49 PM, andrea del bene <[email protected]> wrote: > It was kind of "noisy" change but I think it's worth it ;-) > > Agreed! >> >> Martin Grigorov >> Freelancer. Available for hire! >> Wicket Training and Consulting >> https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov >> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 7:01 PM, andrea del bene <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Agree, but I'd rather move WicketTestCase under >>> org.apache.wicket.util.tester to be fully consistent. >>> >>> On 18/06/2015 16:21, Martin Grigorov wrote: >>> >>> HI, >>>> >>>> Actually there are 4 classes with this FQN. And all of them are in src/ >>>> *test*/java/... >>>> If my memory serves me well wicket-core's one has been in >>>> src/*main*/java >>>> in 1.4.x. >>>> I find it useful also for applications so I'd suggest to move it back to >>>> src/*main*/java. >>>> This way I think all other 3 classes could be removed. >>>> >>>> Martin Grigorov >>>> Freelancer. Available for hire! >>>> Wicket Training and Consulting >>>> https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 5:11 PM, andrea del bene <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi folks, >>>> >>>>> I see that Wicket has two WicketTestCase classes, one from wicket-core >>>>> and >>>>> the other from wicket-extensions and both under the same package :-/. >>>>> This >>>>> makes using WicketTestCase impossible if we depends on >>>>> wicket-extensions >>>>> as >>>>> this produces a name conflict. >>>>> Should we do something about this (for example rename WicketTestCase >>>>> from >>>>> wicket-extensions)? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >
