> > What you have is a gwt-app that you use as a playground/sandbox to help > you test gwt-libâ‹…s. It happens that the gwt-app was initialized from the > archetype, but it could have not been the case and wouldn't have changed > anything to your gwt-lib issue. It also happens that your gwt-app is built > in the same Maven multi-module project, but again it could have been > different, and it wouldn't have changed your gwt-lib issue. This is why I > said, and keep saying, the archetype is not part of the equation. >
Oh wow. Now I can very well see that indeed, multi-module archetype hasn't been the part of the equation this whole time. In fact the original problem was eventually reduced to a simple question of ideal use case for *gwt:generate-module* and *gwt:generate-module-metadata*, and whether its use would be appropriate for *gwt-lib* modules with deep inheritence structure. Your insight on the problems raised by the upcoming (hopefully) release of GWT3.0 makes me think about many things. I guess a well thought architecture of an app is not a subject of depreciation and it will easily surpass those days with grace. But it's hard to be optimistic about the fate of actual client components. Not the the best time to invest time and efforts into building castles, it may turn out that you built them on a swamp. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
