I found this a bit confusing the read, so I'm not sure - but my
impression that was after the fixes for MWAR-47 and MWAR-55 it is now
working as it should, and if you need different behaviour you should add
a new configuration option. Is that correct?
On 10/08/2006 8:13 AM, Brian E. Fox wrote:
So I'm looking into the latest war plugin because upgrading from a very
old version (beta2) broke my build. We are currently doing this:
I create wars that are intended to be repackaged by excluding all jars
and some various other files I don't want included (we create 2 wars,
one that can be run standalone for unit testing and one that is
deployed). In the war that does the repackaging, I use the dependency
plugin to unpack the first war into the target folder where the war
plugin does the inplace processing. This broke because between beta2 and
2.0.1, code was added to check the file timestamp. If the timestamp in
the project is older than the one being unpacked, then it isn't used,
even though we intend it to.
The overlaying performed by the war plugin when there are dependent wars
suffers from the same problem. The comment in the source says that no
files will be overwritten. In my case, this would work because I could
layer them correctly. The problem is that the code calls the same
copyifmodified method which checks the timestamps. So the question: is
this a bug, in otherwords should it always not overwrite or should I add
a flag to tell it to not overwrite?
Thanks,
Brian
--
Apache Maven - http://maven.apache.org/
Better Builds with Maven - http://library.mergere.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
