if all your jcr content (the copied one and the generated one) resided in target/classes then you proposal would be fine. however it depends on the setup of your filevault xml project if this ist he case - and often it's not.
but if you have a build/resources/resource declaration in your project that copies everything to target/classes (which is not required, but is seen often in project setups), then it should work. yes, it would make sense to have an optional configuration property in the maven-sling-plugin to support this use case. stefan >-----Original Message----- >From: Julian Sedding [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 9:35 AM >To: Sling Developers List >Subject: Re: Maven Sling Plugin - fsmount > >Hi Stefan > >Thanks again for your reply. However, I still don't understand why you >think I need to use "files and folders" mode. I can run sling:fsmount >on my content-package module, which creates a FILEVAULT_XML >configuration, and then manually adjust the configuration to point to >my "target/classes" directory instead of the >"src/main/content/jcr_root" and this (seems?) to work fine in initial >tests. > >What I would like to achieve is that I can (optionally) influence the >configurations that sling:fsmount creates for me. I.e. the automatic >discovery would not be changed, but it would be possible to create >additional configurations or tweak discovered configurations (e.g. >setting "Check Interval" lower can be useful with auto-refresh >scenarios). > >I'll see if I can come up with a PR. Maybe it's easier to discuss it in >code ;) > >Regards >Julian > > >On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Stefan Seifert <[email protected]> >wrote: >> 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 >>>> >>
