On 4/16/2013 2:31 AM, Richard Vowles wrote:
what needs concatenating? there isnt much designed to be anti-modular these days.
Some properties files. I could possibly remove the properties files issue by either having the developers hand craft them for each project, or design a new modular configuration system. The first is error-prone, and the second will take a bit of time.
I suppose an ant task would work as well, but since I'm trying to replace ant I would like to avoid falling back on it.
The current ant build is a rather fragile set of scripts that is very environment-dependent. The current pom.xml (actually three right now) is environment and IDE agnostic - which is the way I think things should be.
Thanks for the feedback, folks. . . . . just my two cents. /mde/
On Apr 16, 2013 6:56 PM, "Mark Eggers" <[email protected]> wrote:Hi, I'm fairly new to Maven, and I'm trying to meet the following requirements. 1. A web site consisting of multiple components, some optional 2. Optional components each have some configuration files 3. If multiple optional components are present, the configuration files should be concatenated My first pass using WAR overlays and the shade plugin worked, in that the resulting site.war had all the right components. However, target/site did not contain the concatenated files created by the shade plugin. This prevented target/site being run from within an IDE. If I thought about it for a minute, that's pretty obvious since the shade plugin is executed during the package part of the lifecycle. What I came up with is the following: 1. Create a multi-module project 2. One module collects all of the components that require use of the shade plugin 3. The second module is the actual site, and depends on the "collections" module 4. Use the WAR plugin overlay, plus exclusions, plus the shade plugin to create an intermediate WAR in the collections module 5. Overlay that intermediate WAR on the final site This works except that I now have an extra artifact that is only used during the build. I can run target/site from the IDE (great for debugging) and site.war looks as it should. Other than the fact that this works, is this the proper "Maven way"? The extra artifact (an artifact of the build process as it were) feels a little odd. . . . . just my two cents /mde/
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
