Hola Thiago... maybe I will take a look some day to component libraries, sure it's the way to go to have the whole app well organized by feature.
But by now, I think I will use the util package by feature, with the downside of having pages, components,... separated. The problem, as always, is time, and I think component libraries is too complicated to do it quickly. My project is medium size. Just one more question... Do you think that it's ok to have (in the root package) a base package as I have, containing "abstract page" to inherit from it the common services and other stuff? and maybe another abstract classes for another types of objects. Thank you very much for your answers, and for the tip about the component libraries (I think it's the right way to go, when I have time :D ) Bye. 2016-08-19 0:43 GMT+02:00 Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <thiag...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 18:59:43 -0300, Juan M Garrido de Paz < > juanm.garrido....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thank you Thiago. >> > > De nada! :D > > I knew there were the posibility to have several root packages, but never >> looked into it to learn about it, and I didn't imagine it could be useful >> for this purpose. You mean that each feature would have a root package >> (feature = root package = "component library")? In this case each feature >> have their own pages, components, etc (they dont have to be centralized)? >> > > Yes, that's a way you can leverage library components to have a more > flexible package structure, which seems to be the your goal here. > > I've just realized that another way could be to organize my "util" package >> directly by feature instead of encoders, grid, etc. What do you think about >> this? It would be simplier than using "component-libraries"? >> > > I think it would work. It would be simpler than component libraries, with > the downside of a feature's pages, components and mixins not being as close > to their other classes of the same feature (such as ValueEncoders, > Tapestry-IoC services, etc). > > How do you organize your projects? >> > > It depends a lot on their size. Small ones can have everything in the same > place. Larger ones would definitely be separated in component libraries, > which would make the application way more modular. Setting up a component > library is a one-time cost which can be done relatively quickly. > > -- > Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo > Tapestry, Java and Hibernate consultant and developer > http://machina.com.br > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org > >
