21 messages in org.apache.wicket.devRe: Wicket 6.0 status| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Martin Grigorov | Feb 20, 2012 11:53 am | |
| Igor Vaynberg | Feb 20, 2012 12:58 pm | |
| Brian Topping | Feb 20, 2012 1:56 pm | |
| Andreas Pieber | Feb 20, 2012 8:11 pm | |
| Martin Grigorov | Feb 20, 2012 11:37 pm | |
| Andreas Pieber | Feb 21, 2012 1:44 am | |
| Emond Papegaaij | Feb 21, 2012 3:13 am | |
| Martijn Dashorst | Feb 21, 2012 7:48 am | |
| Martijn Dashorst | Feb 21, 2012 7:50 am | |
| Igor Vaynberg | Feb 21, 2012 8:23 am | |
| Sven Meier | Feb 22, 2012 11:18 pm | |
| Andreas Pieber | Mar 5, 2012 3:00 am | |
| Martin Grigorov | Mar 5, 2012 4:34 am | |
| Martin Grigorov | Mar 5, 2012 5:04 am | |
| Martin Grigorov | Mar 5, 2012 5:05 am | |
| Andreas Pieber | Mar 5, 2012 5:36 am | |
| Martin Grigorov | Mar 6, 2012 5:52 am | |
| Achim Nierbeck | Mar 6, 2012 6:04 am | |
| Martin Grigorov | Mar 6, 2012 6:11 am | |
| Andreas Pieber | Mar 6, 2012 7:22 pm | |
| Igor Vaynberg | Mar 6, 2012 7:41 pm |
| Subject: | Re: Wicket 6.0 status | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Andreas Pieber (anpi...@gmail.com) | |
| Date: | Mar 5, 2012 3:00:34 am | |
| List: | org.apache.wicket.dev | |
Finally I had the minutes to hack anything together. The script could be found here [1] and shows the following conflicts (and I'm positively surprised by the low number :-)):
Package: org.apache.wicket.request.handler.logger in wicket-core, wicket-request, Package: org.apache.wicket.util.string.interpolator in wicket-core, wicket-util, Package: org.apache.wicket.request.mapper in wicket-core, wicket-request, Package: org.apache.wicket.util.resource in wicket-core, wicket-util, Package: org.apache.wicket.util.io in wicket-core, wicket-util, Package: org.apache.wicket.request.handler in wicket-core, wicket-request, Package: org.apache.wicket.util.file in wicket-core, wicket-util, Package: org.apache.wicket.request in wicket-core, wicket-request, Package: org.apache.wicket in wicket-core, wicket-util, Package: org.apache.wicket.util.string in wicket-core, wicket-util, Package: org.apache.wicket.util.crypt in wicket-core, wicket-util, Package: org.apache.wicket.util.lang in wicket-core, wicket-util,
Kind regards, Andreas
[1] https://gist.github.com/1977817
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:44, Andreas Pieber <anpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
not that I know of, but this should be a small and neat enough python/perl/shell script to extract the list. I can give it a shot later this week if you like.
Kind regards, Andreas
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 08:37, Martin Grigorov <mgri...@apache.org> wrote:
OK. Is there any handy tool that automatically will check for these problems and tell us how many packages need to be renamed ? AFAIK there are no cyclic dependency between Wicket's modules.
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Andreas Pieber <anpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey,
I second Brain on this one: As long as package names do not overlap and there are no circular dependencies between the bundles I see no reason to object.
Kind regards, Andeas
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 22:57, Brian Topping <topp...@codehaus.org> wrote:
On Feb 20, 2012, at 2:53 PM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
- renaming for OSGi Does anyone have an idea how many packages should be renamed ? Some people say that a package should have its module name in it (e.g. o.a.w.core.**). Other people say that we should rename just the packages which exist in two or more modules.
I didn't see an issue for renaming in Jira, apologies if that was an oversight.
There is a "Bundle-SymbolicName" and "Bundle-Version" in the manifest. Many OSGi projects use the SymbolicName as the base name for the Maven jar (i.e. o.a.w.util).
Then make sure that the Maven jar version complies to OSGi numbering criteria and use it in both the manifest and the jar version. http://semver.org/ is compatible with the OSGi numbering, so if that's still the plan, all is good.
As far as packages go, having the bundle SymbolicName as the package root for the bundle is a good convention (by eliminating package naming conflicts), but not required.
If package names do not overlap and circular dependencies between bundles are removed, the requirements for OSGi should be satisfiable.
Brian
-- Martin Grigorov jWeekend Training, Consulting, Development http://jWeekend.com