- someone would need only the content of wicket-core and none of the extras - someone would need only wicket-core + wicket-request - someone would need only wicket-core + wicket-util - ...
I suppose the above scenarios actually were needed and that lead to the split. If there is no practical use in having Wicket broken into multiple packages, then why do it in the first place?
In any case, since I assume there is a reason for the split, I'd say that the same use-cases that apply in a non-osgi environment, also apply for the OSGi case. Projects that only need wicket-core should load only that and nothing else. Other than being "leightweight" for such cases, I don't see a reason why an "uber-jar" won't work.
Now, assuming that this split is what the community and the developers want, it should be offered for both non-OSGi as well as OSGi environments. This means that we simply need to make sure there is at least one package that is unique per bundle and instruct OSGi people to do package-based imports using the non-common packages.
For example, in Daniele's case, the package used in "org.apache.wicket.request". However this exists in both the wicket-core and wicket-request bundles, causing the problem. A different package should be used.
@Daniele: try importing "org.apache.wicket.request.flow", which only exists in "wicket-request". This should get you the correct bundle, without having to modify the distribution. Alternatively, you can import specific bundles rather than packages.
Having said that, for what it's worth, I agree with Daniele that since this is a major release, it is a golden opportunity to do some OSGi-friendly package-renaming.
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 21:20:57 +0300, Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org> wrote:
It is the same conversation. You need uber-jar. At least one that combines -util, -request and -core. Everything else is optional, depending on your app needs. Can you describe what is the problem to use the uber-jar? Or what are the benefits to deploy these three jars separately in the OSGi container ? On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Daniele Dellafiore <dani...@dellafiore.net> wrote:Are you referring to this conversation? http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/wicket-1-5-rc2-and-aggregate-jar-for-osgi-td3356667.htmlIf so, I read it and answered that I'm not interested in any solution that involves the uber-jar. I do not see any advantage in that solution over anormal war.I do not find any other advice from you and Eike, maybe you can point me outthe right conversation.On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org>wrote:Hi Daniele, Me and later Eike explained to you in the other thread you started few months ago how to solve exactly this problem. It seems you didn't read it at all. Please read again the part mentioning Wicket 1.5 RC1. On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Daniele Dellafiore <dani...@dellafiore.net> wrote: > I did it. Yes, the tough way but I did it. > Now the 1.5RC3 quickstart app just started on my karaf 2.2 with the > 1.5-SNAPSHOT I built. >> Basically I renamed the .util and .request packages in -core bundle to be> .core.util and .core.request.> I had to make a class public in another package under -request bundle to> make it visible, but it's a minor thing. >> I open a bug on jira now... wow, is down :) well, as soon as it get back> online. > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Daniele Dellafiore > <dani...@dellafiore.net>wrote: > >> it is not. >> >> I'm hacking on the trunk to make that work. >> Maybe a quick solution is just change org.apache.wicket to >> org.apache.wicket.core in the -core bundle. >> >> Of course there are some default scope classes that works through different >> packages but I can just make them public for now. >> >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 3:18 PM, James Carman < ja...@carmanconsulting.com>wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Daniele Dellafiore < ilde...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > I think that the wicket package layout should be changed now that -util >>> and >>> > -request bundles have been detached from -core. >>> > >>> >>> From an OSGi perspective, we should probably try to make sure that >>> packages don't span jar files. Everything in >>> org.apache,wicket.request should be in wicket-request.jar, for >>> example. I don't know if that's the case, currently or not. >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------->>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org >>> >>> >> > -- Martin Grigorov jWeekend Training, Consulting, Development http://jWeekend.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
