We may wish to keep that on the radar since it would allow for a truly
reproducible build. It is important for us people that work in the SOX
compliance world and should be elsewhere. I would agree that leaving it
off the initial release list is fine.
Regards,
Garvin LeClaire
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
davidkarlsen wrote:
Hmm,
We thought about this too - but came to the conclusion that this was not
preferable because:
- It's best to let the classpath building be handled by ws_ant because it's
quite complex to regenerate the WAS classpath correctly.
- End users may be running different versions of WAS.
- There won't be any dependencies on non-central deps.
- Thus the execution of ws_ant / integration with WAS is based on the normal
tools - used the intended way.
nicolas de loof-3 wrote:
Looks a nice idea (as I'm migrating to WAS 6.1 !)
I'd prefer to avoid dependency on an installed WAS6 server
Couldn't the plugin declare dependencies on WAS6 jars, and a goal to
install/deploy them in a private repo (like the
eclipse:make-artifacts<http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-eclipse-plugin/make-artifacts-mojo.html>does)
?
I myself have written a was5 plugin to encapsulate wsdl2service task using
this strategy, so that developers don't have to install WAS to get the
build
to pass.
Nico.
-----
http://www.davidkarlsen.com
