If you're looking for a solution to resolving transitive dependencies from WARs, you can use the maven-warpath-plugin. We (at the AppFuse project) would *love* to see the functionality from this plugin added to the maven-war-plugin.
http://static.appfuse.org/plugins/maven-warpath-plugin/ Matt Stephane Nicoll-2 wrote: > > Hi, > > On 3/21/07, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Stephane, Piotr, >> Thanks for taking this on and putting together this proposal. As we >> discussed previously, I have significant issues with the current war >> plugin, so much that we have been stuck using a patched version of >> 2.0-beta-2 because anything newer breaks my build. I believe that your >> proposal solves nearly all my issues. >> > > Yeah that's the purpose. > >> Will the use of this new overlay cause the transitive dependencies of the >> overlayed wars to be resolved and included? I currently construct wars >> that I intend to be used as overlays by excluding all the jars. I do this >> to avoid conflicts but also to reduce the size in the repository. >> Unfortunately because I'm using a very old version of mwar, I have to >> manually keep my war project dependencies synchronized. If these >> transitive dependencies from the wars are automatically pulled in, then I >> think it's safe to also exclude WEB-INF/lib by default from the overlays. >> I think we'll have an excellent solution at that point. > > The proposition sticks to a simple overlay which does not resolve the > transitive dependencies, that's a very good point. We could even put a > default exclude on WEB-INF/* for overlays that are not the current > build (?). This will also solves the issues of people having multiple > time the same dep with a different minor versions in the resulting > war. > > Oh by the way, I forgot to tell that we could include multiple times > the same overlays if we want to control the overriding policy of a > particular piece of an overlay. > > The only thing I am afraid of right now is performance. Not sure we > will be able to implement this without copying stuff more than one > time to the target directory. > >> >> Thanks, >> > Thanks for taking the time to respond. We will start the > implementation, probably targetting 2.1 instead of 2.0.3 since it's > quite a major new functionality. > > Any other comment is more than welcome (such as sample projects that > reproduces complex scenario that we could include in ITs). > > Thanks, > Stéphane > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Stephane Nicoll [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 5:17 PM >> To: Maven Developers List >> Cc: Piotr Tabor >> Subject: War plugin and Overlays handling >> >> Hi, >> >> Piotr and I are currently working on the war plugin and especially >> this overlay mechanism that needs to be upgraded. Currently a couple >> of issues [1] in the war plugin are linked to this functionality and >> we should really address them. >> >> The idea here is to provide a better way to handle overlays through an >> explicit configuration. An overlay has the following parameters: >> >> * groupId >> * artifactId >> * classifier (optionnal) >> * includes (default includes everything) >> * excludes (default META-INF) >> >> The order in which overlays are specified defined the order in which >> they are applied. An overlay without a groupId/artifactId is >> considered as the current build. If no such overlay is defined, it is >> applied *last*. >> >> The behavior should be deterministic so the copy will happen not >> matter how if a file is newer than the one being applied. Overlays >> order always wins. >> >> If no overlays section is defined, the wars are processed as before; >> dependentWarIncludes and dependentWarExcludes are honored. If an >> overlays section is defined and those configuration items are defined, >> they are ignored and a warning is logged. >> >> If a dependent war is missing in the overlays section, it's applied >> after custom overlays *and* before the current build (if the current >> build is not specified of course) with the default includes/excludes. >> >> Does that sounds ok to you? If so I'll add the proposition to the war >> site and start the implementation with Piotr. We're also thinking >> about integrating the merge functionality of the cargo plugin but we >> still need to discuss with the cargo guys if it will be feasible. >> >> Please comment. >> >> Stéphane >> >> [1] MWAR-72, MWAR-66, MWAR-78 >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/War-plugin-and-Overlays-handling-tf3429803s177.html#a9602182 Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
