No. Not expected to remember... But sometimes one does... especially bentmann in my experience ;-)
On Sunday, 25 November 2012, Anders Hammar wrote: > Just a check, is one supposed to remember why one did something 4.5 years > ago? I can hardly remember what I did last week.... > > I'm currently searching JIRA to see if I can find a ticket that would match > Benjamin's fix. > > /Anders > > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Stephen Connolly < > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > So it is not to create the shaded artifact at a different coordinate > > without requiring the creation of an additional module? > > > > I agree it seems a tad insane, but if we could get bentmann to chime in > as > > to what it is actually supposed to do, then I think we can make a correct > > decision... > > > > Of course the code may not work... Which is a different issue... > > > > But having to create a module with a Pom that has to be kept in sync just > > to put the shaded artifact with dependency reduced Pom at a different > > coordinate... Does seem wasteful... Otoh how is the reactor to know the > > artifact will magically appear and hence produce the correct build > plan... > > > > So I have nearly convinced myself that it is insane... But let's ask! > > > > On Sunday, 25 November 2012, Benson Margulies wrote: > > > > > I am fairly depressed here, and I agree with Anders. > > > > > > The shadedArtifactId was added in svn rev 640405 by bbentman. > > > > > > The log for that change consists of: > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > r640405 | bentmann | 2008-03-24 09:17:58 -0400 (Mon, 24 Mar 2008) | 1 > > line > > > > > > o Added svn:eol-style=native > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > That really does not shed any light. Further, the name is completely > > > misleading. it does not, in fact, change how the attach happens, it is > > > just a baroque means of specifying the final name in pieces. So I > > > modify my proposal to consist of: > > > > > > attach > > > > > > attachClassifier > > > > > > outputDirectory > > > > > > finalName > > > > > > no sub-objects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Benson Margulies < > bimargul...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > Anders, > > > > > > > > I'm willing to go on a history expedition to see who added the > > > > feature. The MavenProjectHelper API suports this feature, let alone > > > > the naked MavenProject API. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Anders Hammar <and...@hammar.net> > > > wrote: > > > >>> > How would you attach an artifact with a DIFFERENT artifactId than > > the > > > >>> > project? It doesn't make sense. > > > >>> > > > >>> This is *already* a feature of the plugin. I didn't invent it, I'm > > > >>> just trying to clean up how your configure it. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> Why would you try to clean up how to configure something that > doesn't > > > make > > > >> sense and is plain wrong? Maven is about best-practices and we > should > > > help > > > >> people do the right thing. > > > >> > > > >> And btw, finalName should be nuked out of the Maven world. :-) > > > >> > > > >> /Anders > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > >>> > I would vote for doing changes that make it impossible to use the > > > plugin > > > >>> as > > > >>> > I-would-like-to-create-any-file-the-way-i-used-to-with-Ant > > solution. > > > I > > > >>> > think that the possibilities to alter the final name of the built > > > >>> artifact > > > >>> > fools people into thinking that you can specify the name of the > > > artifact. > > > >>> > You migth be able to specify the name of the build file in the > > build > > > >>> > folder, but that's not something you should create a build > solution > > > >>> around. > > > >>> > > > >>> Well, finalName in the pom it
