That said, for consistency - how about defaulting to ${maven.final.name}.war, but making a copy to ${pom.artifactId}.war for existing builds? Output a warning that says it will be turned off in the future.
Felipe, what is the reason to introduce all the different final.name properties? Why isn't maven.final.name sufficient? A project only produces one output, so maven.final.name should be able to be used in any context. I should have been watching the JIRA issues come in more carefully, but unless there is a good reason I'd prefer we didn't have this change.
Cheers, Brett
Felipe Leme wrote:
I agree with Jason - if you really need the WAR withouth the version, than just overwrite the property in your project. Besides, the war is deployed/installed with the version in the name anyway, so the plugin is already inconsistent.
What about a [VOTE] message to decide the final answer?
-- Felipe
On 18 Oct 2004 15:07:47 -0400, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So what happens when you have the next version of the webapp that must
live in conjunction with the older version? As with anything in Maven I
think not having the version in the name of the artifact is a serious
liability. You can overwrite one with another without noticing
immediately and who knows what else. I build WARs with something else so
I have no personal concern but I think from the general perspective of
Maven artifacts without versions is simply bad form.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
