It's not forcing you to put your stuff there. It merely *also* allows you to put it there. It's also easy to remove (perhaps we could add a comment saying to remove it if they want).
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Brill Pappin <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> >> 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: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
