Hi Brett, Brett Porter wrote: > There was some hesitation to adding filtering in the first place - we > added it as a parameter on the resources plugin because it was > uncertain it would be retained in the POM. It now looks like it will, > but we're wary of how it is used. > > It is important for Maven to work that the values filtered in are > always the same if the artifact being built is the same. If you want > to build 2 different artifacts, you use 2 profiles (or two projects), > and provide different filters to each. Ok, agree.
> > I'm curious why you need different filters for different sets of files > - do they have changing values or is it just an "optimisation"? Kind of optimization and I don't want to filter binary files. So I thought of creating one resource set with "ascii files" and one for the binary files and apply filtering only to the first set to be sure that the binary files don't get corrupted. > > Also, it should be noted that Maven builds in a pom.properties file > into META-INF as well as a copy of pom.xml so that you can retrieve > such values at runtime if needed. > > Anyway, I'm happy to discuss what the filtering needs are and adjust > accordingly. I'm still reluctant to promote filters to the resource > element itself, but it can be considered again. I think it makes more sense to have it at the resources element because you define your resource sets and then you want to apply directly to this set some filtering (or not). If you separate this (resource set and plugin configuration) it's not that obvious what's really going on and it makes it imho harder to apply filtering than it should be. You loose the connection between the resource sets (or test resource sets) and the settings of the plugin. WDYT? Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
