Can you reiterate why you need tomcat:exploded and tomcat:inplace
instead of just using the war:* goals?
This was probably discussed in the users list thread, but good to
elaborate here. I find it really helpful to see how you intend to use
the plugin, then look at how that would be implemented.
- Brett
Mark Hobson wrote:
On 02/11/05, Kenney Westerhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Mark Hobson wrote:
Just some thoughts:
The 'war' packaging _NEEDS_ a .war to be produced in case it will be used
in an ear. If you replace the war packaging by 'exploded', then there is
no artifact which will fail the install goal etc.
This is true, but I guess the lifecycle would only be modified if the
tomcat:exploded goal was present in the list of goals to execute -
kinda smells of undeterministic behaviour though..
People want to test their webapps without running the war:war goal
since it is so slow. I can understand that.
Perhaps a new lifecycle phase 'dev' or something, just before 'package',
might be useful in this case.
Maybe a 'prepare-package' phase? I'm not sure how this would work
with war:inplace though, since the results of this goal are mutually
exclusive to the war:exploded and war:war goals.
Another way would be to optimize the WarMojo to update the .war instead of
recreating it each time. Then the war:war will always run, and you bind
war:exploded to the package phase too. This will eliminate the performance
penalty, I hope.
This would certainly help, although tomcat:inplace still wouldn't be
able to depend on war:inplace.
Cheers,
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
