I fully agree with Martijn! My biggest concern is to keep our existing user base happy and productive...
So... 1) -1 this will make happy a few developers and upset many. we are on a _release candidate_ and should concentrate on eliminating bugs. There's always a next version to add features. 2) +1 as this should not hurt much 3) +0 Cheers Peter Am 18.08.2011 um 09:38 schrieb Johan Compagner: > For us personally i don't care, <1> could be done, we are not on 1.5 > yet and if we do the package rename is easy to fix. > > But i agree with the rest that this is to big to do in such a late > stage, and maybe also after that stage. > Because for osgi the simppe fix is to make one big jar right? Thats > really easy... > I would think that solution could be for now even after 1.5 be the > right solution. > > johan > > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 19:22, Igor Vaynberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> a lot of energy has gone into discussing and prototyping wicket+osgi >> in the past few days. >> >> it seems the biggest obstacle is that there are split packages between >> wicket-[core,request,util] jars. usually we wouldnt fix this now >> because we are in RCs and it requires moving pretty much all classes, >> for example all classes in core/o.a.w would have to move to >> core/o.a.w.core, which is roughly 99% of all classes in Wicket. the >> fix should be relatively easy, running fix imports on the project from >> an IDE would fix all user-code, but like i said, i do acknowledge it >> is pretty damn late in the game to do such a thing. >> >> the alternative, however, seems also rather nasty. we would have to >> shade (merge) util and request modules under core. we would also have >> to maintain a custom maven plugin, that would be part of our build, >> that can generate osgi manifests for the shaded jar. this would also >> mean we would have to support the said plugin for all possible >> versions of maven out there that people building wicket from source >> use. >> >> yet another alternative is to basically give the finger to the osgi >> community and do nothing. they can repackage the jar to meet their >> needs elsewhere, maybe in wicketstuff. i dont think this is really an >> option given how much of people's energy and time went into even >> discovering these options, but its here for completeness' sake. >> >> so here are our options: >> >> 1) fix the split package problem now with a big >> package-rename-refactor that will affect all existing code that >> depends on 1.5. >> >> 2) introduce a custom maven plugin to shade/manifest wicket-core. fix >> the split package problem in wicket.next. >> >> 3) leave osgi support out of 1.5 >> >> vote ends saturday 8/20 at 10:30am gmt-7. >> >> -igor >>
