+1 to rename current wicket to wicket-core On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[email protected]>wrote:
> +1 to rename current wicket into wicket-core > > -igor > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > With https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-3261 I added a new > Maven > > module to 1.5: wicket-core. > > Its purpose is to create a .jar that contains the classes from > wicket.jar, > > wicket-util.jar and wicket-request.jar (aka uberjar, jarjar, ...). > > > > We split wicket/ to three modules : wicket/, wicket-util and > wicket-request > > to make it more modular and easier to maintain, but now (non-Maven) users > > complain about class loading problems because they didn't add -util and > > -request in their classpath. > > The purpose of the new module is to hide the fact that we split the code > > internally and tell all users to use the new uberjar. > > We can even not publish the smaller ones in the Maven repos. > > > > The open question is: should we rename current wicket module to > wicket-core > > and the new module to become 'wicket' ? > > Pros: > > - all user apps will continue to have dependency to > > org.apache.wicket:wicket > > Cons: > > - merging code from 1.4 to 1.5 can become a bit harder > > > > If we agree on that renaming of the modules then I need a date when other > > devs don't commit anything to do it. > > > > martin-g > > >
