> On Feb 1, 2016, at 12:07 PM, Stefan Seelmann <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 02/01/2016 03:14 PM, Shawn McKinney wrote: >> In preparation of release here are the artifact listings of what needs to be >> pushed into maven: >> >> 1. Fortress Core >> >> a. fortress-core-1.0-RC41.jar >> b. fortress-core-1.0-RC41-sources.jar >> c. fortress-core-1.0-RC41-tests.jar >> d. fortress-core-1.0-RC41.javadoc.jar >> >> 2. Fortress Realm >> >> a. fortress-realm-impl-1.0-RC41.jar >> b. fortress-realm-impl-1.0-RC41-sources.jar >> c. fortress-realm-impl-uber-1.0-RC41.jar >> d. fortress-realm-proxy-1.0-RC41.jar >> e. fortress-realm-proxy-1.0-RC41-sources.jar > > Not sure if javadoc makes sense? If Realm doesn't provide an API it's > probably not required.
There’s a realm API, used for web app integration. e.g. a method to share the RBAC ‘session' created during container authN. But I have the same question. Should we push the javadoc into maven? > > On Feb 1, 2016, at 12:07 PM, Stefan Seelmann <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 3. Fortress Rest >> >> a. fortress-rest-1.0-RC41.jar >> b. fortress-rest-1.0-RC41.war >> c. fortress-rest-1.0-RC41-javadoc.jar >> d. fortress-rest-1.0-RC41-sources.jar >> >> 4. Fortress Web >> >> a. fortress-web-1.0-RC41.war >> b. fortress-web-1.0-RC41-classes.jar >> c. fortress-web-1.0-RC41-sources.jar > > Not sure if the additional "classes" classifier is required, the type > "jar" may be enough. > > And as above, what about Javadoc? Agreed: remove the word ‘classes’ from the jar’s name. I have a moderate inclination to proceed pushing javadoc jars into maven. It’s convenient and can’t think of a reason not to. Shawn
