its too late to be doing this for 1.5. i agree we should not have package namespaces split across the jars, but fixing it in 1.5 would touch almost every single file and a lot of user code would be broken as a result. a good example is IDetachable which is in wicket-util but i left it in the wicket package instead of wicket.util. moving that class into util would touch around 90% of core code, and about 90% of user code. lets save this change for 1.6.
we tried to create the uber jar but it failed. maybe if we used something like gradle we couldve done it, but switching build systems just for this seems a little extreme. what the proponents of osgi should do is create a jira issue, targetted for 1.6 and start outlining all the changes we need to do to make using wicket in osgi easier. we will do our best to make them as long as they do not impact the framework too much. -igor On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Daniele Dellafiore > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> >>> I'm not against improving the current state. I'm saying that it want >>> last long without your help. >>> I said several times that the community can create the uber-jar >>> project in wicketstuff but so far no one wanted to do it. >>> I can do it for you but I wont test it in a real OSGi container. I'm >>> just not interested in this. >>> But we can apply your patches if they are reasonable. >>> >> >> Let's try. As I told, the first move is to rename into .core.util and >> .core.request the packages in -core bundle. This is reasonable? If it is >> not, well, I'll go for a issue for 1.6 and move totally on the uber-jar >> solution. If it is reasonable, we can proceed. >> > You said that broke some tests in your local build. See what are the problems. > Create a ticket and attach patches. It will be easier to review this way. > >> >>> About testing - I don't see how unit tests will help to keep it >>> working in the future. Any ideas/patches on this matter are welcome! >>> >> >> Eh, this can totally be done with pax-runner, as integration tests, but >> I've not enough experience with this so far. >> >> >>> >>> My concerns are that we had similar issue with Portlets support. When >>> we ran the vote whether to remove the support for Wicket 1.5 few >>> people (~ 5) asked to move the related code in wicketstuff so the >>> community can support it. Half an year later no one touched it so far. >>> >> >> This is totally reasonable. Let's see which way we can take here. >> >> Regards. >> > > > > -- > Martin Grigorov > jWeekend > Training, Consulting, Development > http://jWeekend.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
