I read through all these threads, and they kind of ran off into
entirely different tracks on alternate build systems and CM.
On Kenney's points in particular:
On 06/12/2006, at 12:41 AM, Kenney Westerhof wrote:
I'm basically -0 on adding generate-package-resources/process-
package-resources
since it doesn't add anything new - things done there can be done in
generate-resources/process-resources. There's no need to duplicate
those pases
later on in the lifecycle (right?).
Well, it depends on how 'resources' are defined. The definition, as
defined by current behaviour, is a classpath resource (or equivalent
for your given language that isn't Java). The WAR plugin already has
a custom configuration <webResources/>, which are 'packaging
resources', a different thing.
We can't repurpose <resources/> or change the war plugin in the ways
you've suggested (disallowing classes) without a significant break in
backwards compatibility (far worse than changing the lifecycle)
My opinion is still that adding 'packaging resources' (or something
with a better name), and the corresponding lifecycle stages (for
consistency with other types of 'resources') is the best solution to
the presented use cases (rather than a pre-package phase, though
that'd do the trick too).
WDYT?
- Brett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
