It will become 'wicket'. On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Peter Ertl <[email protected]> wrote:
> If we rename wicket to wicket-core what will be the name of the _current_ > wicket-core module? > > Am 22.12.2010 um 12:33 schrieb Martin Grigorov: > > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:27 PM, tetsuo <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> +1 I guess > >> > >> Please say if I've understood it correctly. By this proposal: > >> - wicket (from the 1.4 perspective) will be split into three modules, > >> wicket-core, wicket-util, wicket-request; > >> - a 'new' wicket.jar will be created to aggregate the three (well, > >> just like the 'old' wicket.jar), easing migration. > >> > > Correct. > > > >> > >> That would be nice. > >> > >> In maven projects, should we add 'wicket' or > >> 'wicket-core'+'wicket-util'+'wicket-request' as dependencies? If we > >> use 'wicket', will it add only one jar to WEB-INF/lib, or will it just > >> be a 'dependency alias', and the other three jars will be added as > >> transitive dependencies? > >> > > > > Your project will depend on 'wicket'. > > It is possible to depend on 'wicket-core' too and '-util' and '-request' > > will come as transitive deps. But as I said in my first mail we may > consider > > to *not* deploy -core, -util and -request in official Maven repos. > > > >> > >> Tetsuo > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Juergen Donnerstag > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> +1 > >>> > >>> Juergen > >>> > >>> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Martin Grigorov < > [email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>>> +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 > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >
