In the last couple of months, this same discussion has come up once or
twice. I believe someone even suggested adding another node to
<dependency> to allow you to change the name of the artifact when it
was brought into your project/jar/war. There might even be a JIRA
already posted as an enchancement request, something along these
lines:
<dep>
<groupId/>
<artifactId/>
<version/>
<scope/>
<finalName>blah.jar</finalName>
</dep>
Ultimately, arguing over how this should work in Maven 2.0 is an
exercise in futility. Your time will be better spent convincing the
Maven Dev team to somehow make it work and add it to M2.1. You will
need a fairly strong business case to make this happen I would think,
as it seems to go against many of the Maven best practices in my mind.
Additionally... you **could** make this work today in M2.0 by using
System scope and specifying the path to the dependency as
../projectA/target/finalName.jar. But I am generally anti-system-scope
(due to various unintended consequences w/it), so please don't
complain if this screws some other things up...
Wayne
On 10/15/06, Yann Albou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Doug,
thanks for your reply.
Yes that's true, Maven has no knowledge of projet A. But it knows that A
is a dependency. So it should include A as a reference in module B using
the finalName: is it completly non sens?
Moreover I found dangerous that the behavior is not the same when
building projet B alone or when building within a multimodule.
finalName is not used for the repository which is perfect. But the
finalName doesn't only effect the name of the artifact but also
references in ClassPath entry of the manifest file, references in
application.xml for EAR or references in WEB-INF/lib for web module...
Yann
Doug Douglass wrote:
> Yann,
>
> This is to be expected. When running maven in your B project, maven has no
> knowledge of project A as a module to be built and referenced, only as a
> dependency that needs to be retrieved from a repository and added to the
> classpath.
>
> In addition, finalName only effects the name of the artifact generated in
> the target directory. If you install/deploy the same artifact it will
> (should) have the standard naming of ${artifactId}-${version}. This is A
> Good Thing, as it prevents ambiguity in the repository.
>
> HTH,
> Doug
>
> On 10/12/06, Yann Albou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> I try to use the finalName in my parent pom as following:
>> <finalName>${artifactId}</finalName> (without the version number)
>>
>> If I run maven from the parent pom everything works fine: all my
>> artifacts are generated without the version number. and also the
>> classpath entry of the manifest.mf file is correctly set.
>> For instance I get :
>> parent
>> --- A module
>> --- B module (with a dependency on A)
>>
>> So it generates B.jar with a Manifest containning "ClassPath: A.Jar"
>>
>>
>> Now If I run maven from B module it generates a B.jar but with a
>> manifest containing "ClassPath: A-1.2.1.Jar" for instance.
>>
>> I get exactly the same behaviour with an EAR module that generate the
>> application.xml => module are not generated with the correct name...
>> If I run maven from the parent pom then the application.xml is generated
>> correctly
>>
>>
>> Did I miss something ?
>>
>> Yann.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
