I love the use of the package structure to keep the file together,
However I don't think we're talking about moving the HTML to a
different structure, they are all still in the same package (although
I've come across cases where I *do* need it outside the package
structure for political and/or functional reasons).
What we're talking about is putting the resource where a Maven user
*expects* them.
As I said several posts ago, I don't think its "wrong" that they be in
src/main/java even if they are not java, but it's not standard Maven
and I don't want them there for that reason and other "sane" reasons
that have already been mentioned (and likely a few not mentioned).
The archetype is a Maven archetype for generating a Wicket project
stub in a Maven build environment.
It's default operation should be to put resources where a Maven user
expects them to be.
It should not be adding a bunch of crap to my build just so it can
place its resources in src/main/java instead of src/main/resources...
at least not without me telling it that I want to use a non-standard
project structure.
Heck, I'd be happy if the option was at least there even if it was not
the default option!
- Brill
On 20-Mar-09, at 10:06 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
There is no sane reason why anyone would put the html, js, css and
properties resources in any place except *next* to the
corresponding.java file. Your .java file can not function without the
.html file. Your component will fail if the .properties file is not
available. When the js file can't be found your component is useless.
Wicket goes beyond the call of duty to provide developers with the
means to encapsulate your components, bringing Object Oriented design
and programming to the web tier. Moving the necessary resources
outside the package folder into a separate directory structure breaks
this encapsulation is definitely not the Wicket Way (tm).
The Wicket archetype is to make building Wicket applications easier,
not to make the life of maven easier.
Martijn
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Wilhelmsen Tor Iver <toriv...@arrive.no
> wrote:
It's a *wicket* archetype that uses Maven as a build tool.
But if it *breaks* the assumptions made by all other plugins used by
Maven as a build tool, is it then not an archetype that *abuses*
Maven
as a build tool? :)
What other contexts would you want to use this *wicket* archetype
that
does not involve Maven? If none, why should it not create a project
structure that Maven likes? Yes, you can override *anything* in
Maven if
you want to, but *do* you really want to?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Apache Wicket 1.3.5 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
