+1. Wicket IMHO does it the right way for its particular situation. Wicket differs from most Java project by the sheer number of resources and by their 1:1 correspondence with Java classes. Maven, I think, is optimized more for the more common case where a project has only a handful of resources that are not tightly bound to particular classes.
jk On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 04:51:38PM +0100, Martijn Dashorst wrote: > I don't want that. If someone is anal about what maven is expecting, > then it is their problem. I am in the business of making the best > wicket development experience, from a Wicket perspective. We're using > maven as a tool, we're not in the business of supplying maven with new > users. > > Putting all resources that belong to a component in the same physical > folder as the component .java file is a best practice for Wicket > users, even newbies. Doing it in any other way is opening the door to > the nine hells of Maven usage and resource location. > > I really don't want the archetype to do anything else than it > currently does, nor document such a way. The Official Wicket Way (tm) > is to put all source files relating to a single unit of work in one > package, in the same physical folder. If you decide to do it > otherwise, it is not The Official Wicket Way. Feel free to disagree, > but do it somewhere else, and in your own private projects. > > Martijn > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
