Re: [mojo-dev] consumer-maven-plugin added to sandbox

[Jörg Hohwiller]

Am 26.02.2014 20:15, schrieb Vincent Latombe:

Hi Jörg,

Hi Vincent,

thanks for writing this; I think it solves in a nice way the "consumer" pom issue.

thanks for your feedback.

Some initial remarks :

- instead of consumerPomFile, I would use the generic outputDirectory to specify the directory itself, and consumerPomName to actually define the file name in this directory. I believe this is more in line with what existing plugins (jar, war...) use in terms of naming conventions

Good suggestion. I already fixed this and this way I also get rid of the deprecation warnings with expression.

- I'm not sure why the behaviour of updatePomFile would be different for packaging 'pom' and other packagings; in my opinion if it deserves a use case, there should be a separate parameter to control whether packaging pom triggers updatePomFile or not

Typically POMs with packaging "pom" are no consumer POMs at all. They are used by developers for the build and could still be distributed via repositories and will never hurt consumers with old maven versions as the consumer POMs do not have a parent section pointing on them. In case you are "missusing" a "pom" packaging to define a dependency indirection as e.g. done for SWT platform switches and redirections then you can manually set this property to "true". So if you do not want that "packaging pom triggers updatePomFile" you can simply set the parameter "updatePomFile" to either "true" or "false" and have it fixed.

- I guess more control on what gets in the resulting pom could be interesting (like removing the build section or specific dependencies)

1. I like the KISS principle.

2. If we are talking about a term "consumer POM" here we should avoid too much flexibility as then in the end we have no control what we mean with this term. However, you are right that some things could be configurable. But for your example I think especially the build section is not what should ever be in a consumer POM. But commercial users might want to remove "scm". While OSS users might want to have issueManagement and ciManagement in consumer POM as well and it would not hurt or cause any side effect for consumption.

Unfortunately I have no clue concerning your question on JDK/OS activated profiles

I already resolved the problems myself.

Cheers,

Vincent

Thanks and regards
  Jörg

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature