On Thursday, September 6, 2007, 5:57:53 AM, Robo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, seems removing \"wicket-velocity-1.3.0-beta3.jar\" from build
> path solved problem with velocity problem. But please explain me why
> removing package from build path solves the problem if nowhere in my
> Hello World code i call for any of the velocity packages. Is there
> some duplicities in packages or what?
Well, without seeing your code or the full stacktrace, we can't be
sure. There's always a chance that you've left a <filter> that uses
Velocity in the web.xml, for instance.
> As to Maven2. It seems that like you in some way force developers to Maven2.
> :-)
In one sense, we do. If users who have problems are able to provide
examples of their issues as QuickStart apps, then we're able to
investigate and fix a lot easier. By using Maven and sticking to the
standard project layout, we provide a layout familiar to a significant
number of Java developers, thus minimising obstacles to getting them
going.
> In wicket inAction EA there is just mentioned that when using Ant
> you need to do some work about libraries ant Maven manages it for
> you. This is too little for serious docs. Please do look into
> Icefaces free docs. There is steb by step mentioned what libs one
> need to enable which feature and the libs are added as demo app more
> feature ritch. Developer needs to understand core functionalities
> and dependencies. Just After understandig this developer is able to
> set up Ant project, make project, Eclipse or Netbeans based project
> and if you want also Maven. :-) But many of the advices about libs
> was \"Use Maven2\" like. If you use it, so use it but do not force
> me to use it.
We don't force you to use it, but if you do choose to swim upstream,
you must expect to have to put in some extra work yourself. The
information's there in easily accessible form and most users seem to
manage find & use it, even those who wish to use build systems other
than Maven. The main issue that would occur with having a separate
document detailing dependances is that it needs keeping in sync, which
is why the one that I know of (and has been referenced recently) is
one generated from the Maven build files.
Frankly, any Java developer worth the name should be at least aware of
how to read Maven pom.xml files in order to determine things such as
dependances, in the same way that in the past, a basic familiarity
with Makefiles and build.xml files would have been expected.
> Explain in some part od book or docs what do I need to
> run which part of wicket to save my time to go into jars and solve
> dependencies troubles. Yes Maven solves you some problems with
> dependecies and also si suitable for small pr oject but at big
> projects it definitely fails. :-/
Does the phrase "When in a hole, stop digging" mean anything to you?
While 'big' is subjective, there are many projects that I'd consider
'big' that are quite happily using Maven - maybe the problem's not
with the tool?
> So please. I know you have lot of work with wicket, and as users can
> see you have a good aproach. But please do spend some time to at
> least write one chapter about libraries, neede dependencies and so
> on. If you have licensing problems just make one clear site with
> core libs link, dep libs link and explanation what feature they are
> enabling and so on.
The point is, this is all documented in the pom.xml, where you can be
sure that it's up-to-date & correct, as else the builds would fail -
if extracted into a document, you'd never be 100% sure it wasn't
out-of-date...
> And make some quick start page in which you
> explainn dependecies on simple sample app :-)
$ mvn archetype:create -DarchetypeGroupId=org.apache.wicket
-DarchetypeArtifactId=wicket-archetype-quickstart
-DarchetypeVersion=1.3.0-beta3
-DgroupId=com.mycompany
-DartifactId=myproject
$ cd myproject
$ more pom.xml
> one Joke. Americans was looking for some pen, which could be used in
> space without troubles, They invested 1 000 000 $ in research and
> finally had one. Russians in the meantime used pencils. :-)
Yes, that one's false too -
http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp.
Lead pencils were used on all Mercury and Gemini space flights and all
Russian space flights prior to 1968. Fisher Space Pens are more
dependable than lead pencils and cannot create the hazard of a broken
piece of lead floating through the gravity-less atmosphere. Both
American and Soviet space missions initially used pencils, NASA did
not seek out Fisher and ask them to develop a "space pen," Fisher did
not charge NASA for the cost of developing the pen, and the Fisher pen
was eventually used by both American and Soviet astronauts.
/Gwyn
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
