bentmann in my experience ;-)
On Sunday, 25 November 2012, Anders Hammar wrote:
Just a check, is one supposed to remember why one did something 4.5 years
ago? I can hardly remember what I did last week....
I'm currently searching JIRA to see if I can find a ticket that would match
Benjamin's fix.
/Anders
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
bimargulies@gmail.com
just trying to clean up how your configure it.Why would you try to clean up how to configure something thatdoesn't
should
solution
Just a check, is one supposed to remember why one did something 4.5 years
ago? I can hardly remember what I did last week....
I'm currently searching JIRA to see if I can find a ticket that would match
Benjamin's fix.
/Anders
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
So it is not to create the shaded artifact at a different coordinate
without requiring the creation of an additional module?
I agree it seems a tad insane, but if we could get bentmann to chime in as
to what it is actually supposed to do, then I think we can make a correct
decision...
Of course the code may not work... Which is a different issue...
But having to create a module with a Pom that has to be kept in sync just
to put the shaded artifact with dependency reduced Pom at a different
coordinate... Does seem wasteful... Otoh how is the reactor to know the
artifact will magically appear and hence produce the correct build plan...
So I have nearly convinced myself that it is insane... But let's ask!
------------------------------------------------------------------------without requiring the creation of an additional module?
I agree it seems a tad insane, but if we could get bentmann to chime in as
to what it is actually supposed to do, then I think we can make a correct
decision...
Of course the code may not work... Which is a different issue...
But having to create a module with a Pom that has to be kept in sync just
to put the shaded artifact with dependency reduced Pom at a different
coordinate... Does seem wasteful... Otoh how is the reactor to know the
artifact will magically appear and hence produce the correct build plan...
So I have nearly convinced myself that it is insane... But let's ask!
On Sunday, 25 November 2012, Benson Margulies wrote:
I am fairly depressed here, and I agree with Anders.
The shadedArtifactId was added in svn rev 640405 by bbentman.
The log for that change consists of:
I am fairly depressed here, and I agree with Anders.
The shadedArtifactId was added in svn rev 640405 by bbentman.
The log for that change consists of:
r640405 | bentmann | 2008-03-24 09:17:58 -0400 (Mon, 24 Mar 2008) | 1 line
o Added svn:eol-style=native
o Added svn:eol-style=native
That really does not shed any light. Further, the name is completely
misleading. it does not, in fact, change how the attach happens, it is
just a baroque means of specifying the final name in pieces. So I
modify my proposal to consist of:
attach
attachClassifier
outputDirectory
finalName
no sub-objects.
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Benson Margulies <
misleading. it does not, in fact, change how the attach happens, it is
just a baroque means of specifying the final name in pieces. So I
modify my proposal to consist of:
attach
attachClassifier
outputDirectory
finalName
no sub-objects.
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Benson Margulies <
wrote:
theAnders,
I'm willing to go on a history expedition to see who added the
feature. The MavenProjectHelper API suports this feature, let alone
the naked MavenProject API.
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Anders Hammar <anders@hammar.net>
wrote:I'm willing to go on a history expedition to see who added the
feature. The MavenProjectHelper API suports this feature, let alone
the naked MavenProject API.
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Anders Hammar <anders@hammar.net>
How would you attach an artifact with a DIFFERENT artifactId than
project? It doesn't make sense.
This is *already* a feature of the plugin. I didn't invent it, I'mjust trying to clean up how your configure it.
make
sense and is plain wrong? Maven is about best-practices and we
help
plugin
solution.people do the right thing.
And btw, finalName should be nuked out of the Maven world. :-)
/Anders
And btw, finalName should be nuked out of the Maven world. :-)
/Anders
I would vote for doing changes that make it impossible to use the
as
I-would-like-to-create-any-file-the-way-i-used-to-with-Ant
I
artifact.
buildthink that the possibilities to alter the final name of the built artifact
fools people into thinking that you can specify the name of the
fools people into thinking that you can specify the name of the
You migth be able to specify the name of the build file in the
folder, but that's not something you should create a build
around.
Well, finalName in the pom it
Well, finalName in the pom it
