On 1/23/07, Filippo Diotalevi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/22/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Our current Wicket release distribution consists of several zip files, > one for each project. Each zip contains all the dependencies for that > particular project, including the wicket dependencies. This means that > when you download wicket-1.2.4.zip, wicket-spring-1.2.4.zip and > wicket-spring-annot-1.2.4.zip, you will download wicket-1.2.4.jar 3 > times, wicket-spring-1.2.4 2 times and wicket-spring-annot-1.2.4.jar 1 > time. > - create one wicket-all zip with all wicket jars I prefer the wicket-all approach, and I don't agree with the observation that nearly all our users use Maven; in my experience, it's just the opposite: really a few users use maven, and it'd be much easier for them to have a single zip file.
I would say that I'm as much a user as anyone else (still using 1.2.2 @ work, shame on me :). But we only use wicket core and some selfcompiled stuff projects. I don't see much idea in the all package because I wouldn't use all of them or even half. Now that I think of it I think it makes sense to have a maven based stripped down source dist, but let the binary dist be without maven and including the dependencies. What do you need the pom for in a binary dist? Frank
