+1 Juergen
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 to rename current wicket to wicket-core > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Igor Vaynberg <igor.vaynb...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> +1 to rename current wicket into wicket-core >> >> -igor >> >> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org> >> 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 >> > >> >
