Re: Discussion: Resource-only artifacts

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 23:40:17 +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: Hello, the proposal looks fine (if the scope system will be that open). Yes, that's the idea. If some plugin needs artifacts which needs different handling, that plugin is free to introduce its own scope.

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? >

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,

Re: Discussion: Resource-only artifacts

Am 08/17/16 um 21:57 schrieb Paul Benedict: > to me... but it does raise the bigger issue regarding Maven and > resource-only artifacts. Except for the "pom" packaging type, every other > type relates to code, no? The current core packaging values are: pom, jar, > maven-plugin, ejb, war, ear, rar,

Re: Discussion: Resource-only artifacts

Okay, thanks for pointing that out. Well, I am trying to see your perspective, but I don't share the sentiment changing scope somehow demotes the reputation of a ZIP file. By it's very nature, it is merely a container. It's nature should be how Maven treats it as default. If a developer wants to

Re: Discussion: Resource-only artifacts

Am 2016-08-17 um 22:05 schrieb Paul Benedict: I am in agreement a ZIP file shouldn't be a "second-class type". I do not want that either. However, it seems I may have said something that makes you believe I am saying otherwise? Can you please let me know what you saw in my explanation? I'd just

Re: Discussion: Resource-only artifacts

I am in agreement a ZIP file shouldn't be a "second-class type". I do not want that either. However, it seems I may have said something that makes you believe I am saying otherwise? Can you please let me know what you saw in my explanation? I'd just like to know and make sure we're on the same

Re: Discussion: Resource-only artifacts

Am 2016-08-17 um 21:57 schrieb Paul Benedict: Yes, it is valid for a ZIP to contain class files. However, I don't believe Maven should create a bias here for Java. The ZIP file type, in its objective form, has nothing to do with Java. It just so happens Java chose to support that file type as a

Re: Discussion: Resource-only artifacts

Yes, it is valid for a ZIP to contain class files. However, I don't believe Maven should create a bias here for Java. The ZIP file type, in its objective form, has nothing to do with Java. It just so happens Java chose to support that file type as a source of classes. As as a consequence, a ZIP

Re: Discussion: Resource-only artifacts

Am 2016-08-17 um 19:20 schrieb Paul Benedict: I'm in in the thought process of MNG-6080 and MNG-5567, and I have an idea to run by the dev folks here: A ZIP file is a type of resource. A resource artifact gets a new scope to remain in the reactor but does not contribute to the compiling process

Re: Discussion: Resource-only artifacts

That's the plugin I had in mind when I first wrote :-) Thanks for sharing the link! This is the rub of the whole discussion. What we do with ZIP files will lend an answer to how Maven should handle resource-only artifacts. 1) How is ZIP different than any other remote resource? 2) Should there

Re: Discussion: Resource-only artifacts

https://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-remote-resources-plugin/ You bundle up your resources and then you can unbundle them whenever you want. Works nice for a lot of shared resources. Licenses, static code analysis configurations, velocity templates, etc etc etc. On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:20

Discussion: Resource-only artifacts

I'm in in the thought process of MNG-6080 and MNG-5567, and I have an idea to run by the dev folks here: A ZIP file is a type of resource. A resource artifact gets a new scope to remain in the reactor but does not contribute to the compiling process or runtime environment. It's up to the build to