On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 15:03 +1100, Brett Porter wrote: > On 06/11/2006, at 12:54 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > > > > > For the configuration yes. But there should be one way to configure > > it. I think you're wrong about what people are going to make with > > the assembly plugin and it will generally be lengthy. Creating a > > file and pointing at it is hardly onerous and then people know > > "yes, that's the place I look for assemblies" which far out weighs > > which I think seems like a slight gain in convenience. We end up > > doing this with all our plugins we've just double the goop people > > have to store in their head about where things are. People at this > > point don't need to look in the POM to know where application > > sources are and this is very powerful. > > I understand what you are getting at, but I can't see how we can tout > convention-over-configuration, and then demand everyone producing a > source assembly have to spell out that they want pom.xml, src/** and > a few well known text files. Likewise, jar-with-dependencies is > rarely going to be any different. > > I'm open to other suggestions (eg, requiring a descriptor, but > allowing it to inherit from a built-in standard), but anything that > starts with copy/paste smells wrong. > > Either way, unless you are actually proposing we deprecate the > existing parameters and behaviour, there's nothing to discuss here - > I've given the appropriate configuration for the current release such > that you don't need ant. > > - Brett >
I must admit that I agree with Brett here - a few standard assemblies are a good idea, with custom ones having a standard location. It does require checking the pom.xml, but I think that is something you might do as a matter of course anyhow (especially as custom assemblies need to configured there too of course)... Andy
