Jason van Zyl wrote:
...
I would just like to avoid the complete arbitrary nature of the gump
descriptor when it comes things that are generated from a project.
In Centipede we use the Gump descriptor for the artifacts, and we
had the same need of having to extend it to specify the artifact type.
H
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 11:35, Kurt Schrader wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2003, at 10:29 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> > I honestly do not like a because it distinctly clashes
> > with a central notion of one artifact per project. Yes, in reality more
> > are produced but maybe this is an indication that pro
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 11:26, Vincent Massol wrote:
> At least we have an agreement on adding a element. That's a good
> first step! :-)
>
> Hmm... If I understand correctly what you are saying about deliverables,
> there should be one project.xml for each deliverable. That means that
> all of the
On Nov 12, 2003, at 10:29 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
I honestly do not like a because it distinctly clashes
with a central notion of one artifact per project. Yes, in reality more
are produced but maybe this is an indication that projects need to be
separated further i.e. a small project for creati
Vincent
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 12 November 2003 16:30
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: RE: [Proposal] Project deliverables definition in POM
>
> On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 09:14, Vincent Massol wrote:
>
>
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 09:14, Vincent Massol wrote:
> I would view deliverables as core information and hence put it in the
> POM/core driver properties.
In the past we have tried to align the top-level POM fields with
dependencies so that there was a mesh for example we have:
foo
bar
...
ct deliverables definition in POM
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Vincent Massol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 12:28 PM
> > To: 'Maven Developers List'
> > Subject: RE: [Proposal] Project delive
> -Original Message-
> From: Vincent Massol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 12:28 PM
> To: 'Maven Developers List'
> Subject: RE: [Proposal] Project deliverables definition in POM
>
>
> I would be -1 to change the standard
Vincent Massol wrote:
> I would be -1 to change the standard naming of
> -..
I think its a minor change if you look at it in the following way:
-
old extensions: .jar .zip .war ...
new extensions: .jar -debug.jar -source.zip ...
> Could you explain why you think it doesn't belong to the POM?
he release plugin, etc)?
Thanks
-Vincent
> -Original Message-
> From: Rafal Krzewski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 12 November 2003 11:43
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: [Proposal] Project deliverables definition in POM
>
> Vincent Massol wrote:
>
> &g
Vincent Massol wrote:
> -.jar
> -src-.zip
> -javadoc-.zip
> etc
>
> We *could* standardize on artifact names of course. The
> could be optional and default to ${pom.artifactId}:
tweaking the above a bit:
-.jar
--src.zip
--javadoc.zip
or as recently advertised:
--debug.jar
--debug-src.jar
Su
> -Original Message-
> From: Michal Maczka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 11 November 2003 20:39
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: RE: [Proposal] Project deliverables definition in POM
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Vin
> Assuming a 1 to 1 relationship with groupId and artifactId would
> be harmful for many projects. (including mine. ;-)
>
I didn't mean that artifactId=groupId :)
I meant that the same artifactId and groupId are shared between two or more
artifacts.
Just their types are different.
For example:
> > >
> > > Why type is not sufficient?
> >
> > Adding a type would be a good first step. But a project
> does not have a
> > single deliverable.
> >
>
> Sorry but I don't understand:
> Aren't artifactId and groupId always the same for all deliverables ?
> (please forget about the fact that mave
> -Original Message-
> From: Vincent Massol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 6:50 PM
> To: 'Maven Developers List'
> Subject: RE: [Proposal] Project deliverables definition in POM
>
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> -Original Message-
> From: Michal Maczka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 11 November 2003 14:21
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: [Proposal] Project deliverables definition in POM
>
> Vincent Massol wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >Shouldn&#
Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
Shouldn't we define project deliverables in the POM? I think this could
be very useful. Let me give some potential usages:
- ability to automatically say "build me this project", whether the
project generates a war, an ejb, an ear, a jar, a plugin jar, etc. ATM,
there is
Hi,
Shouldn't we define project deliverables in the POM? I think this could
be very useful. Let me give some potential usages:
- ability to automatically say "build me this project", whether the
project generates a war, an ejb, an ear, a jar, a plugin jar, etc. ATM,
there is no way to recognize a
18 matches
Mail list logo
