Also, many folks already migrated their applications to 1.5. And many
projects depending on wicket (wicket stuff) have done their migrations
as well. I seriously doubt anyone will look fondly upon our project
when we decide to move things around yet again. In fact it would be
detrimental to our
(non-binding)
1) -1 Breaking the API in such a drastic way is simply not done between RCs.
It's not as easy as simple reorganizing imports, because a lot of classes have
name clashes with classes in other packages, which require manual interaction.
It will take me about a day I guess to fix
Non-binding:
I am very interested in long-term OSGi support, but the features being
released into Wicket under the release candidate moniker is becoming a
joke. If it's not a bug fix, it belongs on the other side of the line.
-1 option 1 because it will annoy many people,
+1 option 2 if it
Non-Binding:
1) Representing the jar structure in the package structure is a really good
move. First of all this have nothing to do with OSGi at all but is rather
good practice anyhow. Still, I'm with Emond (between RC this is simply to
much) and with Martijn (about breaking existing projects).
For us personally i don't care, 1 could be done, we are not on 1.5
yet and if we do the package rename is easy to fix.
But i agree with the rest that this is to big to do in such a late
stage, and maybe also after that stage.
Because for osgi the simppe fix is to make one big jar right? Thats
I fully agree with Martijn!
My biggest concern is to keep our existing user base happy and productive...
So...
1) -1 this will make happy a few developers and upset many. we are on a
_release candidate_ and should concentrate on eliminating bugs. There's always
a next version to add
non binding
1) -1
2) +1
3) +0
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Peter Ertl-3 [via Apache Wicket]
ml-node+3752061-1331625607-65...@n4.nabble.com wrote:
I fully agree with Martijn!
My biggest concern is to keep our existing user base happy and
productive...
So...
1) -1 this will make
IMHO the decision to split wicket into core, -util and -request should
be reconsidered after 1.5, so for now:
1) -1
2) +1 (if it's possible without a custom plugin)
3) +0
Sven
On 17.08.2011 19:22, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
a lot of energy has gone into discussing and prototyping wicket+osgi
in
Hi,
This is related to the currently running vote about OSGi problem with
split packages in sub-modules (-util, -request and -core).
Sven Meier - today, James Carman - few months ago, and few other
people doubted about the decision to split wicket.jar in sub-modules.
I believe this is the way to
I missed some of the discussions on mail list on this topic. To me it
sounds like what we were always after: separate (sub-)projects for
internal development purposes and a single wicket.jar in maven's
public repo. If finally somebody found a way to achieve this with
maven, the better.
Juergen
brian's patch shades the artifacts under wicket-core instead of wicket...
-igor
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Martin Grigorov mgrigo...@apache.org wrote:
Hi,
This is related to the currently running vote about OSGi problem with
split packages in sub-modules (-util, -request and -core).
Andreas Pieber works on a patch for approach 2).
-util, -request and -core will be shaded in wicket.jar
A new module named wicket-osgi will be introduced with all OSGi
related impls of IClassResolver, ISerializer, etc...
-spring and -guice will receive some patches so they can be used in
OSGi
Sounds fine to me:
If the sub-modules are relevant for wicket devs only, then we shouldn't
bother our users with it, whether in osgi or non-osgi environments.
Sven
On 08/18/2011 09:41 PM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
Andreas Pieber works on a patch for approach 2).
-util, -request and -core will be
Changing o.a.w/wicket to a bundle and removing -core, -util and -request from
deploying
I'll start a full discussion about this on the dev mailing list that all can
profit of it
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/wicket/pull/3
OK, just to make this more interesting :-)
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 21:41, Martin Grigorov mgrigo...@apache.org wrote:
Andreas Pieber works on a patch for approach 2).
-util, -request and -core will be shaded in wicket.jar
This one works really fine. I've used the patch I've set for
15 matches
Mail list logo
