Re: Preleminary Maven 3.4.0-SNAPSHOT Testing (Take 3)

Sorry I am so late to this party. I find that Apache Maven 3.4.0-SNAPSHOT (90f26c279af9738735be8f84f60dcf21b6244e24; 2016-07-22T11:23:04-04:00) prefers .mvn/maven.config options instead of specifically listed parameters. This is surprising to me. I expect the .mvn/maven.config options to be

Re: Discussion: Resource-only artifacts

Hello, the proposal looks fine (if the scope system will be that open). How would you differentiate between artifacts and artifact archives (i.e. those you want to explode)? BTW: just a usecase: In our buildsystem I have POMs which produce articles which can contain dozent of files. They are in

Re: Discussion: Resource-only artifacts

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 21:27:38 +0200, Paul Benedict wrote: On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Robert Scholte wrote: IMO any artifact with the compile-scope should end up on the classpath. If such artifact shouldn't end up there, that artifact

Re: Discussion: Resource-only artifacts

Bernd, okay, I find that sensible. Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers, Paul On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > Am Thu, 18 Aug 2016 14:27:38 -0500 > schrieb Paul Benedict : > > Agreed, but only if your understanding of "do"

Re: Discussion: Resource-only artifacts

Am Thu, 18 Aug 2016 14:27:38 -0500 schrieb Paul Benedict : > Agreed, but only if your understanding of "do" includes do nothing. I > wouldn't expect the maven-war-plugin to assume it knows what to do > with my resource-only artifacts. Do you think it should do something? >

Proposed solution + pull request for MNG-5909

Hello, I found this ticket : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5909 to match one of my current problems. I have 3 profiles (A, B and C) each activated on file existence criteria. I need to change it so that : - if fileA is missing, none of these profiles must be active - if file A is

Re: Discussion: Resource-only artifacts

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Robert Scholte wrote: > IMO any artifact with the compile-scope should end up on the classpath. If > such artifact shouldn't end up there, that artifact should have a different > scope. > All current scopes are related to the classpath,

Re: Discussion: Resource-only artifacts

IMO any artifact with the compile-scope should end up on the classpath. If such artifact shouldn't end up there, that artifact should have a different scope. All current scopes are related to the classpath, which is certainly too strict. You've just described a case where a zip-file should

Re: Discussion: Resource-only artifacts

Christian, I am in agreement. Do you have a suggestion on how to identify the resource file name? Right now the implies the extension. I have an idea in mind, but don't want to bias anyone before they give their feedback. Thoughts? And if anyone else has a solution to propose, please respond,