One should differentiate between building wicket from CVS, building Wicket from the distributable and applications using Wicket. For the latter two, we supply the downloadable distribution complete with ant and maven build scripts, including the libraries.
When building wicket from CVS, we require maven as build tool. This enables us to deliver a new release including an up to date website without effort (if everybody keeps using maven). Upgrading all projects each time when a library is upgraded is a source for errors which is too easily stepped over. When building wicket using the distribution, we don't require maven as build tool, but deliver the complete package including the dependend jars. Developers wanting to build wicket themselves can use ant, maven, idea, eclipse or whatever suits their needs as far as I'm concerned. My main objection is that all projects seem to have their own lib directory where everytime all the dependencies are replicated. This is a recipe for disaster. We already have problems keeping our unit tests running between the different projects. I vividly imagine what happens with the duplication of the libraries. Maven has its faults and problems, but the dependency support is very good and enables us to provide perfect support for ant/eclipse/idea/netbeans/etc. *in the distributable* at no cost in duplication. Martijn ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/ _______________________________________________ Wicket-develop mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
