> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michal Maczka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 11 November 2003 20:39
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: RE: [Proposal] Project deliverables definition in POM
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vincent Massol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 6:50 PM
> > To: 'Maven Developers List'
> > Subject: RE: [Proposal] Project deliverables definition in POM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Michal Maczka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: 11 November 2003 14:21
> > > To: Maven Developers List
> > > Subject: Re: [Proposal] Project deliverables definition in POM
> > >
> > > Vincent Massol wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Why type is not sufficient?
> >
> > Adding a type would be a good first step. But a project does not
have a
> > single deliverable.
> >
>
> Sorry but I don't understand:
> Aren't artifactId and groupId always the same for all deliverables ?
> (please forget about the fact that maven artifact resolving mechanism
> cannot
> handle this )
Close but not quite I think. For example:
<artifactId>-<version>.jar
<artifactId>-src-<version>.zip
<artifactId>-javadoc-<version>.zip
etc
We *could* standardize on artifact names of course. The <artifactId>
could be optional and default to ${pom.artifactId}:
<deliverables>
<deliverable>
<artifactId>${pom.artifactId}</artifact> (optional)
<type>plugin</type>
</deliverable>
</deliverables>
Also, if there is no <deliverables> section, the following will be
loaded in the Project object:
<deliverables>
<deliverable>
<artifactId>${pom.artifactId}</artifact> (optional)
<type>jar</type>
</deliverable>
</deliverables>
That said, and for now, we could simply add a <type> element to the POM.
That would represent the main deliverable of the project.
Thanks
-Vincent
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
