You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wicket.apache.org by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> on 2007/01/22 23:25:31 UTC
Packaging our releases
Our current Wicket release distribution consists of several zip files,
one for each project. Each zip contains all the dependencies for that
particular project, including the wicket dependencies. This means that
when you download wicket-1.2.4.zip, wicket-spring-1.2.4.zip and
wicket-spring-annot-1.2.4.zip, you will download wicket-1.2.4.jar 3
times, wicket-spring-1.2.4 2 times and wicket-spring-annot-1.2.4.jar 1
time.
Also, each release contains the generated website. Now the only two
websites that are actually worth something are:
- the main wicket distribution, as it contains the examples.
- the wicket-quickstart distribution, as it contains the guides for the 3 ide's
Recently, Eelco asked the question, what will improve our release
process? Part of the improvement could come from streamlining the
contents of our zips.
Some options I see (I'm not +1, just stating them):
- split zips into source and binary distributions, going with the
default maven assemblies
- remove site docs from distributions, only include a readme, the
docs can be found online (http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKETxSITE)
- create one wicket-all zip with all wicket jars
- add source-jar/javadoc-jar to the zips (currently left out)
Questions:
- do we need to support ant builds for the source distribution?
- do we need to supply all dependencies in the source and/or binary
distribution
- do we like our current distributions, so no change is necessary?
WDYT?
Martijn
--
Vote for Wicket at the http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket
Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now!
http://wicketframework.org
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Frank Bille <fr...@gmail.com>.
On 1/22/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Questions:
> - do we need to support ant builds for the source distribution?
-1
- do we need to supply all dependencies in the source and/or binary
> distribution
Let's go maven2 and don't include dependencies in source distributions. I'm
-0 on including them in binary.
Frank
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Frank Bille <fr...@gmail.com>.
On 1/23/07, Filippo Diotalevi <fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/22/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Our current Wicket release distribution consists of several zip files,
> > one for each project. Each zip contains all the dependencies for that
> > particular project, including the wicket dependencies. This means that
> > when you download wicket-1.2.4.zip, wicket-spring-1.2.4.zip and
> > wicket-spring-annot-1.2.4.zip, you will download wicket-1.2.4.jar 3
> > times, wicket-spring-1.2.4 2 times and wicket-spring-annot-1.2.4.jar 1
> > time.
> > - create one wicket-all zip with all wicket jars
>
> I prefer the wicket-all approach, and I don't agree with the
> observation that nearly all our users use Maven; in my experience,
> it's just the opposite: really a few users use maven, and it'd be much
> easier for them to have a single zip file.
>
I would say that I'm as much a user as anyone else (still using 1.2.2 @
work, shame on me :). But we only use wicket core and some selfcompiled
stuff projects. I don't see much idea in the all package because I wouldn't
use all of them or even half.
Now that I think of it I think it makes sense to have a maven based stripped
down source dist, but let the binary dist be without maven and including the
dependencies. What do you need the pom for in a binary dist?
Frank
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Filippo Diotalevi <fi...@gmail.com>.
On 1/22/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Our current Wicket release distribution consists of several zip files,
> one for each project. Each zip contains all the dependencies for that
> particular project, including the wicket dependencies. This means that
> when you download wicket-1.2.4.zip, wicket-spring-1.2.4.zip and
> wicket-spring-annot-1.2.4.zip, you will download wicket-1.2.4.jar 3
> times, wicket-spring-1.2.4 2 times and wicket-spring-annot-1.2.4.jar 1
> time.
> - create one wicket-all zip with all wicket jars
I prefer the wicket-all approach, and I don't agree with the
observation that nearly all our users use Maven; in my experience,
it's just the opposite: really a few users use maven, and it'd be much
easier for them to have a single zip file.
--
filippo
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Quenot <jb...@apache.org>.
* Ingo Adler:
> I'm not using Maven. I use Ant and Ivy.
Me too. And I'd love to see Wicket using the successful combo,
but this is not (yet) the case of others[1].
> I like the wicket-all idea. One version - one distribution - one
> download.
>
> First step: I create (or copy) an IntelliJ project with modules
> over the extracted distribution. So I can navigate through the
> source, the samples and the rest. The web site and the docs are
> not important. But I don't mind. If the projects are nicely
> structured I can even compile and start the sample applications
> without any hassle.
>
> I use this project to lookup how samples work, for api
> documentation and to look how the internals are implemented.
>
> Second step: I copy all the jar files I need to my repository to
> update my projects.
>
> The wicket-all distribution is a nice addition to people who
> want to get an overview over the current release quickly
> without getting into the details of the project's structures
> (subprojects and source/jar and distribution jars) in the maven
> repositories.
+1. We need to have both the artifacts deployed to a central
repository (for the Maven or Ivy users that already know Wicket),
and the all-in-one package for the beginner to become acquainted
with Wicket.
Cheers,
--
Jean-Baptiste Quenot
aka John Banana Qwerty
http://caraldi.com/jbq/
[1] http://www.nabble.com/Ant-%2B-Ivy-tf2667504.html#a7438702
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Ingo Adler <de...@synacon.ch>.
Hi,
I'm not using Maven. I use Ant and Ivy.
I like the wicket-all idea. One version - one distribution - one download.
First step: I create (or copy) an IntelliJ project with modules over the
extracted distribution. So I can navigate through the source, the
samples and the rest. The web site and the docs are not important. But I
don't mind. If the projects are nicely structured I can even compile and
start the sample applications without any hassle.
I use this project to lookup how samples work, for api documentation and
to look how the internals are implemented.
Second step: I copy all the jar files I need to my repository to update
my projects.
The wicket-all distribution is a nice addition to people who want to get
an overview over the current release quickly without getting into the
details of the project's structures (subprojects and source/jar and
distribution jars) in the maven repositories.
Ingo.
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> Our current Wicket release distribution consists of several zip files,
> one for each project. Each zip contains all the dependencies for that
> particular project, including the wicket dependencies. This means that
> when you download wicket-1.2.4.zip, wicket-spring-1.2.4.zip and
> wicket-spring-annot-1.2.4.zip, you will download wicket-1.2.4.jar 3
> times, wicket-spring-1.2.4 2 times and wicket-spring-annot-1.2.4.jar 1
> time.
>
> Also, each release contains the generated website. Now the only two
> websites that are actually worth something are:
> - the main wicket distribution, as it contains the examples.
> - the wicket-quickstart distribution, as it contains the guides for
> the 3 ide's
>
> Recently, Eelco asked the question, what will improve our release
> process? Part of the improvement could come from streamlining the
> contents of our zips.
>
> Some options I see (I'm not +1, just stating them):
> - split zips into source and binary distributions, going with the
> default maven assemblies
> - remove site docs from distributions, only include a readme, the
> docs can be found online (http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKETxSITE)
> - create one wicket-all zip with all wicket jars
> - add source-jar/javadoc-jar to the zips (currently left out)
>
> Questions:
> - do we need to support ant builds for the source distribution?
> - do we need to supply all dependencies in the source and/or binary
> distribution
> - do we like our current distributions, so no change is necessary?
>
> WDYT?
>
> Martijn
>
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
On 1/22/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> - split zips into source and binary distributions, going with the
> default maven assemblies
+1
- remove site docs from distributions, only include a readme, the
> docs can be found online (http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKETxSITE)
+1
- create one wicket-all zip with all wicket jars
-1
this day and age people will mostly use maven, so why even have zips? can we
not simply post the jars produced by maven on our site and into apache's
snapshot repo
have anstructions on our page for adding the necessary deps into pom.xml
- add source-jar/javadoc-jar to the zips (currently left out)
-1 mvn eclipse:eclipse -DdownloadSources=true or get them yourself from the
maven repo or our site
Questions:
> - do we need to support ant builds for the source distribution?
no, we use maven2. maybe have an example ant on our wiki and let users fix
it when its broken.
- do we need to supply all dependencies in the source and/or binary
> distribution
no, all dependencies are easily available through the maven repo or our site
for wicket deps
- do we like our current distributions, so no change is necessary?
no, lets streamline it and let maven do more work for us
-igor
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
> Some options I see (I'm not +1, just stating them):
> - split zips into source and binary distributions, going with the
> default maven assemblies
+1
> - remove site docs from distributions, only include a readme, the
> docs can be found online (http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKETxSITE)
+1
> - create one wicket-all zip with all wicket jars
-0. Is it easier to do one zip? Or is this an extra?
> - add source-jar/javadoc-jar to the zips (currently left out)
+1 (especially the source, I wish all projects would do that). That
should be a standard maven option now, right?
> Questions:
> - do we need to support ant builds for the source distribution?
-1. I think we should remove them, just as we should remove/ removed
maven 1 files.
> - do we need to supply all dependencies in the source and/or binary
> distribution
-1.
> - do we like our current distributions, so no change is necessary?
Whatever increases our chances of releasing more often.
Eelco
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Alexandre Bairos <al...@gmail.com>.
Hi. Answers right after the questions.
On 1/22/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Our current Wicket release distribution consists of several zip files,
> one for each project. Each zip contains all the dependencies for that
> particular project, including the wicket dependencies. This means that
> when you download wicket-1.2.4.zip, wicket-spring-1.2.4.zip and
> wicket-spring-annot-1.2.4.zip, you will download wicket-1.2.4.jar 3
> times, wicket-spring-1.2.4 2 times and wicket-spring-annot-1.2.4.jar 1
> time.
>
> Also, each release contains the generated website. Now the only two
> websites that are actually worth something are:
> - the main wicket distribution, as it contains the examples.
> - the wicket-quickstart distribution, as it contains the guides for the 3
> ide's
>
> Recently, Eelco asked the question, what will improve our release
> process? Part of the improvement could come from streamlining the
> contents of our zips.
>
> Some options I see (I'm not +1, just stating them):
> - split zips into source and binary distributions, going with the
> default maven assemblies
+ 1 default maven assemblies.
- remove site docs from distributions, only include a readme, the
> docs can be found online (http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKETxSITE)
+1
- create one wicket-all zip with all wicket jars
+1 if it doesn't hurt to much to make it work.
- add source-jar/javadoc-jar to the zips (currently left out)
-1 javadoc only.
Questions:
> - do we need
to support ant builds for the source distribution?
> - do we need to supply all dependencies in the source and/or binary
> distribution
-1
- do we like our current distributions, so no change is necessary?
could be improved as stated.
WDYT?
>
> Martijn
>
> --
> Vote for Wicket at the
> http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket
> Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now!
> http://wicketframework.org
>
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Al Maw <wi...@almaw.com>.
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> Our current Wicket release distribution consists of several zip files,
[...]
Wheee, this is almost getting religious. :)
Maven 2 users just, errr, use Maven 2. :)
So for the others, I'd have thought it simplest to have a single zip/tgz
download containing the wicket sub-project JARs plus all their deps. You
can easily automate this using the mvn assembly plug-in.
Maven 2 will generate a nice dependencies report, which we should
probably stick up somewhere, so if someone is not using Maven 2 and
wants the smallest set of dependency libraries, they don't need to go
hunting around to work out what they need.
-1 on all wicket sub-projects wrapped into single JAR. Spring started
out this way and has now fragmented into sub-project JARs, and they wish
they'd done it like that from the start. Most people will only use
wicket and wicket-extensions.
(I'd also suggest renaming wicket to wicket-core, as it makes it more
obvious there are other modules available, but whatever.)
Al
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Justin Lee <jl...@antwerkz.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
I just use either maven or ant+maven tasks to dl the jars. I hardly dl
the distro bundles at all.
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> Other peops than core devs please voice your opinion. The
> distributions are made for you.
>
> Martijn
>
- --
Justin Lee
http://www.antwerkz.com
AIM : evan chooly
Skype : evanchooly
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)
iD8DBQFFtUPrJnQfEGuJ90MRAxPvAKDNcttJM9s8HnMQi5T5dogucabUEwCgliuS
tlvh4COP9OaDS+0z0+QGb+Y=
=AtBX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
That is why I 'polled' the masses: to find out if anyone is attached
to our current packaging. Fortunately the @dev subscribers aren't
attached to the current packaging, so we can move to the default
assemblies.
Martijn
On 1/24/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> but there is no longer the pain of sf.net releases! since all our future
> (save 1.2.5) will be asf where you just drop files into an ftp server. so if
> we use default maven packaging it will remove that burden from you.
>
> -igor
>
>
> On 1/23/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Because I like our current assembly: source and binary in one package
> > per project.
> >
> > Splitting things up into src/bin is really a pain with the sf.net file
> > release system. Doubling the number of artifacts would increase the
> > release manager's workload considerably (twice the number of files to
> > upload, twice the agony of attaching files to a release package, twice
> > the agony of updating the file information).
> >
> > The reason for this thread is to see what can be done to make it more
> > easy in the future. Not for our current sf.net releases (they will
> > remain the same).
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> > On 1/23/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 1/23/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If/when we are going to use the standard/default maven supplied
> > > > templates, then we will have the following distributions readily
> > > > available:
> > > >
> > http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-assembly-plugin/descriptor-refs.html
> > >
> > >
> > > why arent we already?
> > >
> > > -igor
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Vote for Wicket at the
> > http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket
> > Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now!
> > http://wicketframework.org
> >
>
>
--
Vote for Wicket at the http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket
Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now!
http://wicketframework.org
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
but there is no longer the pain of sf.net releases! since all our future
(save 1.2.5) will be asf where you just drop files into an ftp server. so if
we use default maven packaging it will remove that burden from you.
-igor
On 1/23/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Because I like our current assembly: source and binary in one package
> per project.
>
> Splitting things up into src/bin is really a pain with the sf.net file
> release system. Doubling the number of artifacts would increase the
> release manager's workload considerably (twice the number of files to
> upload, twice the agony of attaching files to a release package, twice
> the agony of updating the file information).
>
> The reason for this thread is to see what can be done to make it more
> easy in the future. Not for our current sf.net releases (they will
> remain the same).
>
> Martijn
>
> On 1/23/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1/23/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > If/when we are going to use the standard/default maven supplied
> > > templates, then we will have the following distributions readily
> > > available:
> > >
> http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-assembly-plugin/descriptor-refs.html
> >
> >
> > why arent we already?
> >
> > -igor
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Vote for Wicket at the
> http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket
> Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now!
> http://wicketframework.org
>
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
Because I like our current assembly: source and binary in one package
per project.
Splitting things up into src/bin is really a pain with the sf.net file
release system. Doubling the number of artifacts would increase the
release manager's workload considerably (twice the number of files to
upload, twice the agony of attaching files to a release package, twice
the agony of updating the file information).
The reason for this thread is to see what can be done to make it more
easy in the future. Not for our current sf.net releases (they will
remain the same).
Martijn
On 1/23/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/23/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > If/when we are going to use the standard/default maven supplied
> > templates, then we will have the following distributions readily
> > available:
> > http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-assembly-plugin/descriptor-refs.html
>
>
> why arent we already?
>
> -igor
>
>
--
Vote for Wicket at the http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket
Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now!
http://wicketframework.org
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
On 1/23/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If/when we are going to use the standard/default maven supplied
> templates, then we will have the following distributions readily
> available:
> http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-assembly-plugin/descriptor-refs.html
why arent we already?
-igor
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
Currently it does. And yes,when I download a project I typically
expect it to work out of the box, no strings attached. I really hate
having to hunt down dependencies which are poorly documented. I also
hate it when projects include dependencies without the version info in
the filename (some include a readme with the version numbers, but that
usually is out of date).
Since we are using and promoting (?) the usage of maven, and even
though it has its flaws, it does induce some very good practices.
If/when we are going to use the standard/default maven supplied
templates, then we will have the following distributions readily
available: http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-assembly-plugin/descriptor-refs.html
Most interesting IMO:
- src
- bin
- project
Martijn
On 1/23/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> if you want dependencies why not download quickstart? that zip has all the
> deps.
>
> do you expect wicket-spring.zip to contain spring.jar?
>
> -igor
>
>
> On 1/23/07, Erik van Oosten <e....@chello.nl> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Igor,
> >
> > It seems like you're mixing two things: the zip-with-dependencies and
> > the src jars.
> >
> > The first is for convenience only and is not so important. Especially
> > when it is hard to create. Please forget about this one.
> > The second can be hard to build and is in my view (and Eelco's) highly
> > desirable.
> >
> > Of course as a simple user I am totally dependent on what you are
> > willing to make. Unfortunately I can only contribute in small ways.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Erik.
> >
> > Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> > > well, i dont really see the difference
> > >
> > > you can either
> > >
> > > a) go to our website
> > > download a zip
> > > extract the zip
> > > put the bin jar into your project
> > > put the src/javadoc jar into your project
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > b)
> > > go to our website
> > > click the link to bin jar that points to the maven repo and save that
> > > into
> > > your project
> > > click the link to src/javadoc jar that poitnts to the maven repo and
> > save
> > > that into your project
> > >
> > > so what does the zip really get you that two links to the maven repo
> > > dont?
> > > you dont have to use maven to download from the maven repo.
> > >
> > > -igor
> > >
> > >
> > > On 1/23/07, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I'd like us to include the src jars. It should be just an option with
> > >> maven, and I always hate it when I have to do it myself (like with
> > >> most projects unfortunately).
> > >>
> > >> Eelco
> > >>
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Erik van Oosten
> > http://day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
>
>
--
Vote for Wicket at the http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket
Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now!
http://wicketframework.org
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
if you want dependencies why not download quickstart? that zip has all the
deps.
do you expect wicket-spring.zip to contain spring.jar?
-igor
On 1/23/07, Erik van Oosten <e....@chello.nl> wrote:
>
> Hi Igor,
>
> It seems like you're mixing two things: the zip-with-dependencies and
> the src jars.
>
> The first is for convenience only and is not so important. Especially
> when it is hard to create. Please forget about this one.
> The second can be hard to build and is in my view (and Eelco's) highly
> desirable.
>
> Of course as a simple user I am totally dependent on what you are
> willing to make. Unfortunately I can only contribute in small ways.
>
> Regards,
> Erik.
>
> Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> > well, i dont really see the difference
> >
> > you can either
> >
> > a) go to our website
> > download a zip
> > extract the zip
> > put the bin jar into your project
> > put the src/javadoc jar into your project
> >
> > or
> >
> > b)
> > go to our website
> > click the link to bin jar that points to the maven repo and save that
> > into
> > your project
> > click the link to src/javadoc jar that poitnts to the maven repo and
> save
> > that into your project
> >
> > so what does the zip really get you that two links to the maven repo
> > dont?
> > you dont have to use maven to download from the maven repo.
> >
> > -igor
> >
> >
> > On 1/23/07, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'd like us to include the src jars. It should be just an option with
> >> maven, and I always hate it when I have to do it myself (like with
> >> most projects unfortunately).
> >>
> >> Eelco
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Erik van Oosten
> http://day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
>
>
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Erik van Oosten <e....@chello.nl>.
Hi Igor,
It seems like you're mixing two things: the zip-with-dependencies and
the src jars.
The first is for convenience only and is not so important. Especially
when it is hard to create. Please forget about this one.
The second can be hard to build and is in my view (and Eelco's) highly
desirable.
Of course as a simple user I am totally dependent on what you are
willing to make. Unfortunately I can only contribute in small ways.
Regards,
Erik.
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> well, i dont really see the difference
>
> you can either
>
> a) go to our website
> download a zip
> extract the zip
> put the bin jar into your project
> put the src/javadoc jar into your project
>
> or
>
> b)
> go to our website
> click the link to bin jar that points to the maven repo and save that
> into
> your project
> click the link to src/javadoc jar that poitnts to the maven repo and save
> that into your project
>
> so what does the zip really get you that two links to the maven repo
> dont?
> you dont have to use maven to download from the maven repo.
>
> -igor
>
>
> On 1/23/07, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'd like us to include the src jars. It should be just an option with
>> maven, and I always hate it when I have to do it myself (like with
>> most projects unfortunately).
>>
>> Eelco
>>
>
--
Erik van Oosten
http://day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
On 1/23/07, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah you can, and the fact that we upload with src jars is a good
> thing. However, I don't expect every user to know where to find those
> src files,
neither do i, thats why we link to them from our website!
-igor
and it sure is a lot easier to just unpack them in link
> them to your IDE of choice directly.
>
> Eelco
>
> On 1/23/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > well, i dont really see the difference
> >
> > you can either
> >
> > a) go to our website
> > download a zip
> > extract the zip
> > put the bin jar into your project
> > put the src/javadoc jar into your project
> >
> > or
> >
> > b)
> > go to our website
> > click the link to bin jar that points to the maven repo and save that
> into
> > your project
> > click the link to src/javadoc jar that poitnts to the maven repo and
> save
> > that into your project
> >
> > so what does the zip really get you that two links to the maven repo
> dont?
> > you dont have to use maven to download from the maven repo.
> >
> > -igor
> >
> >
> > On 1/23/07, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd like us to include the src jars. It should be just an option with
> > > maven, and I always hate it when I have to do it myself (like with
> > > most projects unfortunately).
> > >
> > > Eelco
> > >
> > >
> > > On 1/23/07, Erik van Oosten <e....@chello.nl> wrote:
> > > > Hi Igor,
> > > >
> > > > Actually, I do use maven. I just have lots of bad experiences with
> it.
> > > > Including it screwing up my eclipse config files. I don't like it
> when I
> > > > have to read a whole book for something simple as building (well,
> > > > perhaps it is not so simple anymore :( ).
> > > >
> > > > > > - do we need to supply all dependencies in the source and/or
> binary
> > > > > > distribution
> > > > > You could make it optional. Spring does this and at times I have
> found
> > > > > this very convenient.
> > > > Just an option. If is too much effort, the wicket core will suffer.
> So
> > > > in that case, I could not care less :)
> > > > Building the src jars is another matter. Not everybody can/will do
> so.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Erik.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> > > > > fine. you dont use maven, but we do. why should we spend extra
> time
> > > > > packaging things in a zip, blah, blah when they are easily
> available
> > > > > to you
> > > > > from the maven repo?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> http://wicketstuff.org/maven/repository/org/apache/wicket/wicket/1.3-incubating-SNAPSHOT/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/wicket/wicket/1.2.4/
> > > > >
> > > > > rather then downloading a zip that has everything, just download
> the
> > > > > parts
> > > > > that you need
> > > > >
> > > > > -igor
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Erik van Oosten
> > > > http://day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
Yeah you can, and the fact that we upload with src jars is a good
thing. However, I don't expect every user to know where to find those
src files, and it sure is a lot easier to just unpack them in link
them to your IDE of choice directly.
Eelco
On 1/23/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> well, i dont really see the difference
>
> you can either
>
> a) go to our website
> download a zip
> extract the zip
> put the bin jar into your project
> put the src/javadoc jar into your project
>
> or
>
> b)
> go to our website
> click the link to bin jar that points to the maven repo and save that into
> your project
> click the link to src/javadoc jar that poitnts to the maven repo and save
> that into your project
>
> so what does the zip really get you that two links to the maven repo dont?
> you dont have to use maven to download from the maven repo.
>
> -igor
>
>
> On 1/23/07, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'd like us to include the src jars. It should be just an option with
> > maven, and I always hate it when I have to do it myself (like with
> > most projects unfortunately).
> >
> > Eelco
> >
> >
> > On 1/23/07, Erik van Oosten <e....@chello.nl> wrote:
> > > Hi Igor,
> > >
> > > Actually, I do use maven. I just have lots of bad experiences with it.
> > > Including it screwing up my eclipse config files. I don't like it when I
> > > have to read a whole book for something simple as building (well,
> > > perhaps it is not so simple anymore :( ).
> > >
> > > > > - do we need to supply all dependencies in the source and/or binary
> > > > > distribution
> > > > You could make it optional. Spring does this and at times I have found
> > > > this very convenient.
> > > Just an option. If is too much effort, the wicket core will suffer. So
> > > in that case, I could not care less :)
> > > Building the src jars is another matter. Not everybody can/will do so.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Erik.
> > >
> > >
> > > Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> > > > fine. you dont use maven, but we do. why should we spend extra time
> > > > packaging things in a zip, blah, blah when they are easily available
> > > > to you
> > > > from the maven repo?
> > > >
> > > >
> > http://wicketstuff.org/maven/repository/org/apache/wicket/wicket/1.3-incubating-SNAPSHOT/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/wicket/wicket/1.2.4/
> > > >
> > > > rather then downloading a zip that has everything, just download the
> > > > parts
> > > > that you need
> > > >
> > > > -igor
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Erik van Oosten
> > > http://day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
well, i dont really see the difference
you can either
a) go to our website
download a zip
extract the zip
put the bin jar into your project
put the src/javadoc jar into your project
or
b)
go to our website
click the link to bin jar that points to the maven repo and save that into
your project
click the link to src/javadoc jar that poitnts to the maven repo and save
that into your project
so what does the zip really get you that two links to the maven repo dont?
you dont have to use maven to download from the maven repo.
-igor
On 1/23/07, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd like us to include the src jars. It should be just an option with
> maven, and I always hate it when I have to do it myself (like with
> most projects unfortunately).
>
> Eelco
>
>
> On 1/23/07, Erik van Oosten <e....@chello.nl> wrote:
> > Hi Igor,
> >
> > Actually, I do use maven. I just have lots of bad experiences with it.
> > Including it screwing up my eclipse config files. I don't like it when I
> > have to read a whole book for something simple as building (well,
> > perhaps it is not so simple anymore :( ).
> >
> > > > - do we need to supply all dependencies in the source and/or binary
> > > > distribution
> > > You could make it optional. Spring does this and at times I have found
> > > this very convenient.
> > Just an option. If is too much effort, the wicket core will suffer. So
> > in that case, I could not care less :)
> > Building the src jars is another matter. Not everybody can/will do so.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Erik.
> >
> >
> > Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> > > fine. you dont use maven, but we do. why should we spend extra time
> > > packaging things in a zip, blah, blah when they are easily available
> > > to you
> > > from the maven repo?
> > >
> > >
> http://wicketstuff.org/maven/repository/org/apache/wicket/wicket/1.3-incubating-SNAPSHOT/
> > >
> > >
> > > http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/wicket/wicket/1.2.4/
> > >
> > > rather then downloading a zip that has everything, just download the
> > > parts
> > > that you need
> > >
> > > -igor
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Erik van Oosten
> > http://day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
>
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
I'd like us to include the src jars. It should be just an option with
maven, and I always hate it when I have to do it myself (like with
most projects unfortunately).
Eelco
On 1/23/07, Erik van Oosten <e....@chello.nl> wrote:
> Hi Igor,
>
> Actually, I do use maven. I just have lots of bad experiences with it.
> Including it screwing up my eclipse config files. I don't like it when I
> have to read a whole book for something simple as building (well,
> perhaps it is not so simple anymore :( ).
>
> > > - do we need to supply all dependencies in the source and/or binary
> > > distribution
> > You could make it optional. Spring does this and at times I have found
> > this very convenient.
> Just an option. If is too much effort, the wicket core will suffer. So
> in that case, I could not care less :)
> Building the src jars is another matter. Not everybody can/will do so.
>
> Regards,
> Erik.
>
>
> Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> > fine. you dont use maven, but we do. why should we spend extra time
> > packaging things in a zip, blah, blah when they are easily available
> > to you
> > from the maven repo?
> >
> > http://wicketstuff.org/maven/repository/org/apache/wicket/wicket/1.3-incubating-SNAPSHOT/
> >
> >
> > http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/wicket/wicket/1.2.4/
> >
> > rather then downloading a zip that has everything, just download the
> > parts
> > that you need
> >
> > -igor
> >
>
> --
> Erik van Oosten
> http://day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
>
>
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Erik van Oosten <e....@chello.nl>.
Hi Igor,
Actually, I do use maven. I just have lots of bad experiences with it.
Including it screwing up my eclipse config files. I don't like it when I
have to read a whole book for something simple as building (well,
perhaps it is not so simple anymore :( ).
> > - do we need to supply all dependencies in the source and/or binary
> > distribution
> You could make it optional. Spring does this and at times I have found
> this very convenient.
Just an option. If is too much effort, the wicket core will suffer. So
in that case, I could not care less :)
Building the src jars is another matter. Not everybody can/will do so.
Regards,
Erik.
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> fine. you dont use maven, but we do. why should we spend extra time
> packaging things in a zip, blah, blah when they are easily available
> to you
> from the maven repo?
>
> http://wicketstuff.org/maven/repository/org/apache/wicket/wicket/1.3-incubating-SNAPSHOT/
>
>
> http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/wicket/wicket/1.2.4/
>
> rather then downloading a zip that has everything, just download the
> parts
> that you need
>
> -igor
>
--
Erik van Oosten
http://day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
fine. you dont use maven, but we do. why should we spend extra time
packaging things in a zip, blah, blah when they are easily available to you
from the maven repo?
http://wicketstuff.org/maven/repository/org/apache/wicket/wicket/1.3-incubating-SNAPSHOT/
http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/wicket/wicket/1.2.4/
rather then downloading a zip that has everything, just download the parts
that you need
-igor
On 1/23/07, Erik van Oosten <e....@chello.nl> wrote:
>
> Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> > Other peops than core devs please voice your opinion. The
> > distributions are made for you.
> > - split zips into source and binary distributions, going with the
> > default maven assemblies
> +1
>
> > - remove site docs from distributions, only include a readme, the
> > docs can be found online (http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKETxSITE)
> +1
>
> > - create one wicket-all zip with all wicket jars
> +0
>
> > - add source-jar/javadoc-jar to the zips (currently left out)
> +10
> I don't like maven (even though I use it from time to time), and I am
> sure not going to let Maven touch my Eclipse files. Perhaps in 3 years
> time.
>
> > Questions:
> > - do we need to support ant builds for the source distribution?
> Not for me.
>
> > - do we need to supply all dependencies in the source and/or binary
> > distribution
> You could make it optional. Spring does this and at times I have found
> this very convenient.
>
> Regards,
> Erik.
>
> --
> Erik van Oosten
> http://www.day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
>
>
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Erik van Oosten <e....@chello.nl>.
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> Other peops than core devs please voice your opinion. The
> distributions are made for you.
> - split zips into source and binary distributions, going with the
> default maven assemblies
+1
> - remove site docs from distributions, only include a readme, the
> docs can be found online (http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKETxSITE)
+1
> - create one wicket-all zip with all wicket jars
+0
> - add source-jar/javadoc-jar to the zips (currently left out)
+10
I don't like maven (even though I use it from time to time), and I am
sure not going to let Maven touch my Eclipse files. Perhaps in 3 years time.
> Questions:
> - do we need to support ant builds for the source distribution?
Not for me.
> - do we need to supply all dependencies in the source and/or binary
> distribution
You could make it optional. Spring does this and at times I have found
this very convenient.
Regards,
Erik.
--
Erik van Oosten
http://www.day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
that was meant for martijn not you
-igor
On 1/22/07, Justin Lee <jl...@antwerkz.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> I just hit reply...
>
> Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> > maybe you shouldve posted this to @user?
> >
> > -gior
> >
> >
> > On 1/22/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Other peops than core devs please voice your opinion. The
> >> distributions are made for you.
> >>
> >> Martijn
> >>
> >> --
> >> Vote for Wicket at the
> >> http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket
> >> Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now!
> >> http://wicketframework.org
> >>
> >
>
> - --
> Justin Lee
> http://www.antwerkz.com
> AIM : evan chooly
> Skype : evanchooly
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)
>
> iD8DBQFFtUZKJnQfEGuJ90MRA35JAJwJjiqVQSpdrh1xuMQ8etH7xpwwbgCbB/8a
> XNs4Uu5IJoNJYM+ZOBgSMl8=
> =ko0K
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Justin Lee <jl...@antwerkz.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
I just hit reply...
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> maybe you shouldve posted this to @user?
>
> -gior
>
>
> On 1/22/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Other peops than core devs please voice your opinion. The
>> distributions are made for you.
>>
>> Martijn
>>
>> --
>> Vote for Wicket at the
>> http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket
>> Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now!
>> http://wicketframework.org
>>
>
- --
Justin Lee
http://www.antwerkz.com
AIM : evan chooly
Skype : evanchooly
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)
iD8DBQFFtUZKJnQfEGuJ90MRA35JAJwJjiqVQSpdrh1xuMQ8etH7xpwwbgCbB/8a
XNs4Uu5IJoNJYM+ZOBgSMl8=
=ko0K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
maybe you shouldve posted this to @user?
-gior
On 1/22/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Other peops than core devs please voice your opinion. The
> distributions are made for you.
>
> Martijn
>
> --
> Vote for Wicket at the
> http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket
> Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now!
> http://wicketframework.org
>
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Ryan Sonnek <ry...@gmail.com>.
+1 to Igor's response....
Use maven conventions as much as possible. Leave the distributions "bare
bones" and get all extra artifacts (source, javadoc) in the maven
repository.
On 1/22/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Other peops than core devs please voice your opinion. The
> distributions are made for you.
>
> Martijn
>
> --
> Vote for Wicket at the
> http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket
> Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now!
> http://wicketframework.org
>
Re: Packaging our releases
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
Other peops than core devs please voice your opinion. The
distributions are made for you.
Martijn
--
Vote for Wicket at the http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket
Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now!
http://wicketframework.org