Can anyone think of a use case other than the war plugin, or should
we just go with the pre-package phase?
On 18/12/2006, at 8:49 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 18/12/2006, at 7:02 PM, Kenney Westerhof wrote:
If you put it that way, then it sounds fine. Except it's not
generally appliccable,
only for (currently) war projects (possibly ear projects too).
(Also for non-java projects, resources usually aren't "classpath"
resources - real resources like windows .res
files are linked in with the dll/exe, although that is kind of a
'classpath' resource too then).
Yeah, I know what you mean. It's really a relic of being ill-
defined in the past so we have to stick with the current behaviour
(where things like properties files wind up in the right place to
be picked up as bundles, etc).
What about we just change the lifecycle for the war plugin and add
phases there?
I think redefining the lifecycle for a packaging would be uglier
(and I don't think we actually support that in the current
implementation - would need to check). Aside from that, there is
use for the concept for other packagings (eg, the assembly plugin).
I guess, the question is whether we generalise a concept that may
or may not have uses outside the war plugin (ie, pushing
webResources up to POM level and adding the extra phases for them),
or whether we address the use case with a pre-package phase.
I'd be happy with either. I think if we have any use cases beyond
the war plugin we should do the first, otherwise the second (as it
is far simpler).
Cheers,
Brett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
