But I really think the feature is legit; it just doesnt work very
well, and the precedence in the link I sent seems ill-though through.
Using order from the assembly specification sounds much more
understandable. And to be honest, I really dont think anyone can rely
on this order actually working in the current plugin, there's just too
much bugs.

"Unpack this jar, but always use *this* specific properties file" is a
nice assembly descriptor.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to evaluate
filsets/depedencyset/file specifications in reverse order, so last
wins. Achieving repeated items within a single file set is probably an
error ( easily achievable with  duplicate <files><file> elements, hard
otherwise - maybe with hardlinks in the file system).


Kristian



2014-10-30 13:10 GMT+01:00 Dawid Weiss <[email protected]>:
> I agree with Anders, no surprise principle. Fail early. I spent a good
> while trying to figure out what the heck is happening with this --
> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MASSEMBLY-724
>
> Dawid
>
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Anders Hammar <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Wouldn't it make sense to fail the build in case of this instead? As I see
>> it, there's something wrong in the descriptor and it should be fixed.
>>
>> Also, doing this change (intead of just altering the algorithm) would make
>> the plugin upgrade "better" (no suprises in the result). A failed build
>> with a good message instead.
>>
>> /Anders
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Kristian Rosenvold <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> There's a truckload of jira issues related to the inclusion algorithm,
>>> and there just seems to be so many simpler ways of handling this ?
>>>
>>> filesets/dependencysets/files processed in descriptor order (or
>>> reverse descriptor) order, first file wins. Reversing descriptor order
>>> would make "last" file win.
>>>
>>> Within a single set, first file always wins.
>>>
>>> What is the use case being solved by the existing algorithm ?? And why
>>> does it try to block based on "input" rather than assembly-output name
>>> ?
>>>
>>> Kristian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-10-30 12:54 GMT+01:00 Kristian Rosenvold <
>>> [email protected]>:
>>> > Reading the instructions on
>>> >
>>> http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-assembly-plugin/advanced-descriptor-topics.html
>>> > makes me wonder, why on earth has this precedence been chosen for the
>>> > assembly plugin ??? Especially case 2 is odd.
>>> >
>>> > There'
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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]

Reply via email to