I am not sure which is the best approach, but I agree that this is an
issue. We need to keep the copy functionality.
I'll think more and come back. Hopefully more people weigh in to ...
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Karen Tran <ktop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I want to get some discussion on what the plugin.xml <resource-file> tag
> should be doing in Windows because I didn't know that it had been changed
> for a while now.
> jira issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-12163
> Current behavior: Doesn't copy resource file from src to target. Instead,
> it will use a reference to the src location. This is the snippet from
> PluginHandler.js explaining this behavior, which was not added to the docs.
> // do not copy, but reference the file in the plugin folder. This
> allows to// have multiple source files map to the same target and
> select the appropriate// one based on the current build settings, e.g.
> architecture.// also, we don't check for existence. This allows to
> insert build variables// into the source file name, e.g.//
> <resource-file src="$(Platform)/My.dll" target="My.dll" />
> This is greatly different from the original intent of a the <resource-file>
> tag since it doesn't do a copy. I don't think that this new behavior really
> should have replaced the copy functionality. It's a little unintuitive to
> reference resources from outside the application. Not all resource files
> are .dll, and there's no other reasonable tag to do a copy for files that
> are not source files, lib files, or assets. (e.g, I'm using resource-file
> tag with a .properties file, but because it does not get copied over, I
> can't reference my properties).
> These are the points I think we should come to a decision on
> 1. What should be the default behavior of <resource-file> tag? Should it
> simply be copy resources as it was originally intended to, or should it be
> doing what it is now, which is making a reference to the resource files.
> 2. Should <resource-file> tag handle both functionalities, or should one be
> separated out into another tag?