What about having the aggregated jar only for the bundle (zip) download, not to be available in maven central?
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org> wrote: > [x] - Just forget about the aggregated wicket.jar and modify the wicket > module a pom-only module. This means Maven users can eternally depend on > wicket only, and not care about how we (re-)structure our code. Non-maven > users will have to download all the separate jars, or use Ivy, or whatever. > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Guillaume Smet > <guillaume.s...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hi Jeremy, >> >> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Jeremy Thomerson >> <jer...@wickettraining.com> wrote: >> > Then, I changed all other modules that were depending on -core to depend >> on >> > plain "wicket". But, that didn't work. >> >> IMHO, it's a bad idea. If the goal is to have cleaner dependencies, >> you should make your modules dependant on the -core/-whatever jars, >> not the aggregated pom dependency. The latter should only be used by >> users to facilitate their migration. >> >> Guillaume, read the previous mails about the reason to depend on > o.a.w:wicket:pom. > > Actually this kind of dependency is also recommended in Sonatype's Maven > book - aggregation over inheritance. > They have plans to make improvements in that area in Maven 3.1. > > But if you really want to do that, you need to add: >> <type>pom</type> >> to your wicket dependency to make it work. >> >> Have a nice day. >> >> I have it working here. > Commit is coming. > > >> -- >> Guillaume >> >
