non binding 1) -1 2) +1 3) +0 On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 5:39 AM, Peter Ertl-3 [via Apache Wicket] < [email protected]> wrote:
> 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 <[hidden > > email]<http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=3752061&i=0>> > 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 > >> > > > > ------------------------------ > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion > below: > > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/vote-Restructure-Packaging-for-OSGi-tp3750643p3752061.html > To start a new topic under Apache Wicket, email > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from Apache Wicket, click > here<http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=1842946&code=amNnYXJjaWFtQGdtYWlsLmNvbXwxODQyOTQ2fDEyNTYxMzc3ODY=>. > > -- JC -- View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/vote-Restructure-Packaging-for-OSGi-tp3750643p3752267.html Sent from the Forum for Wicket Core developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
