Hi Wayne - that seems a very inefficient approach, having 5 or 6 separate
modules to manage to achieve a single assembly. The point is that maven does
have phases, goals, lifecycles - why not use them? The MavenProject object
already provides the mechanism for one plugin to see the attachments f
Sorry just correcting myself, I was referring to the maven shade plugin not
mojo shade plugin.
-Richard
-Original Message-
From: Richard Sand [mailto:rs...@idfconnect.com]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:54 PM
To: 'Maven Users List'; 'Maven Developers List'
Subject: RE: artifact attache
Hi all,
Mirko thanks for your reply. I think the plugin API should have *some* simple
mechanism for transferring a "generated" artifact from one plugin to the next.
In my example, the project creates a standard named artifact i.e.
"${project.build.finalName}.war", and the obfuscation plugin als
Duh, a bad copy/paste without any alarmbells from my IDE
Thanks, it's fixed
Robert
Op Mon, 26 Aug 2013 12:50:36 +0200 schreef Claudio Bley :
At Sat, 24 Aug 2013 16:40:57 +0200,
Robert Scholte wrote:
Hi Claudio,
my holidays are over, so time to have a look at this.
I've attached a test
At Sat, 24 Aug 2013 16:40:57 +0200,
Robert Scholte wrote:
>
> Hi Claudio,
>
> my holidays are over, so time to have a look at this.
> I've attached a testcase to the original issue, but I'm not able to
> reproduce it.
Your testcase works fine for me. That is, after I fixed the
maven-metadata.xml
On 26 August 2013 09:06, Arnaud Héritier wrote:
> I think it doesn't work if you have several level of inheritance in
> different projects and you don't republish all intermediate artifacts
> Let's imagine you have projectA <-- inherit <-- projectB <-- inherit <--
> projectC
> If all of them are
I think it doesn't work if you have several level of inheritance in
different projects and you don't republish all intermediate artifacts
Let's imagine you have projectA <-- inherit <-- projectB <-- inherit <--
projectC
If all of them are in SNAPSHOT for now if you change projectA and republish
it,
On 26 August 2013 08:27, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > It's better than that... I am not sure if I said it earlier or not, so I
> > will try to say it now.
> >
> > When we get the next format, there are probably actually three files we
> > want to
Hi Stephen,
Stephen Connolly wrote:
[snip]
> It's better than that... I am not sure if I said it earlier or not, so I
> will try to say it now.
>
> When we get the next format, there are probably actually three files we
> want to deploy:
>
> foo-1.0.pom (the legacy 4.0.0 model)
> foo-1.0-build
