currently the goal is to provide a "full automatic experience" - when calling "sling:fsmount" on a maven project it is detected automatically if it is a Sling-Initial-Content or filevault project and creates the OSGi mapping accordingly.
you need a custom additional mapping beyond this automatic. this is already possible by creating a manual mapping in the osgi configuration, but in your case only for the "files and folder" mode, without interpreting .content.xml files - not sure if this is enough. if you need more i suppose it would not be too hard to extend the existing mapping configuration to support additional folders. perhaps an new mapping type or a variant of the filevault mapping type which does not rely on the filter.xml, but allows to specify the source path and the repository target path manually. this has to be added in the fsresource implementation; i'm not sure if it makes sense to integrate this special usecase also in the logic of the sling:fsmount goal. stefan >-----Original Message----- >From: Julian Sedding [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 2:32 PM >To: Sling Developers List >Subject: Re: Maven Sling Plugin - fsmount > >Hi Stefan > >Thanks for your reply. > >I was hoping that we could avoid generating build artifacts inside the >"src" folder. It just doesn't feel quite right. Also, I would like to >locate the respective "*.ts" and "*.scss" files in the location where >the compiled "*.js" and "*.css" files end up. I think that makes it >easier to understand, especially for frontend devs with only a >superficial understanding of Sling/AEM. > >Is there a big technical obstacle with adding the ability for custom >additional mappings with filevault support? If so, can you expalin >and/or give me a pointer? I'm happy to invest some time into improving >the plugin, so any guidance is appreciated. > >Thanks >Julian > > > >On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Stefan Seifert <[email protected]> >wrote: >> hello julian. >> >> yes, i think your assumptions are right. in case of filevault project >there is currently no way to add some "custom additional mappings" >(although you could of course add an additional mapping with only "files >and folders" only for your target dir, when there are no content fragment >in xml or json files involved. >> >> we solve this problem usually this way: configure the frontend tooling to >compile directly in the destination folder (e.g. >src/main/content/jcr_root), but exclude this folder from SCM management by >providing a path for the affected subfolder containing compiled code via >.gitignore. is this an option for you as well? >> >> stefan >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Julian Sedding [mailto:[email protected]] >>>Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 11:47 AM >>>To: Sling Developers List >>>Subject: Maven Sling Plugin - fsmount >>> >>>Hi all and Stefan in particular >>> >>>I am in the process of setting up a maven build for a joint frontend >>>(HTML, CSS, JS) and backend team (Sling / AEM). >>> >>>The goals for the frontend team workflow are: >>> >>>- use Node.js based tooling / frontend build (integrated using >>>frontend-maven-plugin - works) >>>- develop HTL templates and sample content (JSON via initial content >>>and fsmount) >>>- develop using SCSS and TypeScript, which is compiled to CSS and JS >>>by the frontend build into target/classes >>>- use as little maven as possible >>>- day to day work is done on the FS using Node.js based tooling with a >>>"watch" job and with live-reload or similar >>>- development speed is essential, i.e. changes done on FS should be >>>visible in a browser in < 500ms >>> >>>Due to the compilation step, which generates CSS and JS in >>>target/classes, I would like mvn sling:fsmount to set up a FS resource >>>provider mapping for target/classes rather than >>>src/main/content/jcr_root (or maybe both, with service.ranking so that >>>target/classes is preferred). As far as I can see the "fsmount" goal >>>currently determines which configurations to create from the >>>filter.xml file (in case of filevault packages), but there is no way >>>to explicitly configure other mappings. >>> >>>- Are my above assumptions regarding the state of "fsmount" correct? >>>- Do you think extending the fsmount config to allow for explicit >>>mappings would be useful? >>>- Do you have experiences to share with similar setups? >>> >>>Regards >>>Julian >>
