On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 18:59:43 -0300, Juan M Garrido de Paz
<juanm.garrido....@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Thiago.
De nada! :D
I knew there were the posibility to have several root packages, but never
looked into it to learn about it, and I didn't imagine it could be useful
for this purpose. You mean that each feature would have a root package
(feature = root package = "component library")? In this case each feature
have their own pages, components, etc (they dont have to be centralized)?
Yes, that's a way you can leverage library components to have a more
flexible package structure, which seems to be the your goal here.
I've just realized that another way could be to organize my "util"
package directly by feature instead of encoders, grid, etc. What do you
think about this? It would be simplier than using "component-libraries"?
I think it would work. It would be simpler than component libraries, with
the downside of a feature's pages, components and mixins not being as
close to their other classes of the same feature (such as ValueEncoders,
Tapestry-IoC services, etc).
How do you organize your projects?
It depends a lot on their size. Small ones can have everything in the same
place. Larger ones would definitely be separated in component libraries,
which would make the application way more modular. Setting up a component
library is a one-time cost which can be done relatively quickly.
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
Tapestry, Java and Hibernate consultant and developer
http://machina.com.br
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
