On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Robert Scholte <rfscho...@apache.org> wrote:
> IMO any artifact with the compile-scope should end up on the classpath. If > such artifact shouldn't end up there, that artifact should have a different > scope. > All current scopes are related to the classpath, which is certainly too > strict. Agreed. So far, as of today, Maven only has scopes that relate to a code. > You've just described a case where a zip-file should not end up on the > classpath, but it should have a scope recognizable by the maven-war-plugin > to understand what it should do with that artifact. > Agreed, but only if your understanding of "do" includes do nothing. I wouldn't expect the maven-war-plugin to assume it knows what to do with my resource-only artifacts. Do you think it should do something? And, if so, is that a justifiable assumption? > I don't think the types matter. Sorry, I was unclear on my point. I was kind of straying onto a different topic but it is closely related. Let me try again.... Since MNG-5567 is introducing a new "zip" type, POMs will then be publishable with <packaging>zip</packaging>. Christian wisely noted there are really two types of resources: archived (like a zip) and non-archived (I'll call these "raw" for now). I'm just trying to stretch my thoughts here and wonder aloud if the packaging type is too specific --- should it really be about any resource in general? Cheers, Paul
