I agree that adding new phase (or phases) does not look like a scalable
solution. For example, in addition to signing, Eclipse projects are
encouraged to pack200 their artifacts, but neither signing nor pack200
are mandatory. So we need to be able add both sign and pack200 steps to
the lifecycle and do that in very specific order. Here are the desired
sequences of steps for the four possible combinations of pack200 and sign.

1. neither pack nor sign
package jar
generate p2 metadata

2. pack200 only
package jar
pack200
generate p2 metadata

3. sign only
package jar
sign
generate p2 metadata

4. pack200 and sign
package jar
pack200 conditioning
sign
pack200
generate p2 metadata

And to make things even more interesting, some users what to "massage"
generated jar files before signing and packing them.

--
Regards,
Igor

On 11-09-04 10:06 PM, Brett Porter wrote:

On 05/09/2011, at 10:37 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:

On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Brett Porter<br...@apache.org>  wrote:

On 05/09/2011, at 3:49 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:

I'm trying to be slightly helpful to the Tycho project. They have a
problem: they need to define a lifecycle that adds a plugin to a phase
*not at the end* of the plugins in the standard lifecycle.

Has anyone else thought about this?

What's the specific use case?


I've copied Igor, the source of this. The problem is to get the
jarsigner plugin into the correct relationship with making P2 metadata
in eclipse.

The Tycho lifecycle can be found at [1]. If signing is going to happen
it has to happen before p2-metadata.

Just shooting my mouth off, I wonder if there should be another phase
for signing, since any time it's going to be used it's likely to have
to be carefully timed between putting the jar together packaging the
jar into something else.

A process-package phase seems to make sense (to match prepare-package) - which 
would be where the tycho metadata step would appear. Sequencing the generation 
of .asc files has been a problem in the past, so it might be a good idea.

If that existed, it's probably also where you'd sign something though, so 
you're back in the same situation - though you'd have the leeway of doing it in 
package as you would now and it seems it would work out.

I don't know if I'd go to adding both a sign and then process step - it seems 
like a better overall solution is if the packaging goals are able to be 
extended in some way to do the signing right after they are generated (which 
also allows no Maven modifications).

- Brett

--
Brett Porter
br...@apache.org
http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Reply via email to