either mojo or a pull request against the assembly plugin (as you may need to tweak the assembly:single default parameters)
On 11 December 2014 at 14:54, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > I am in agreement with Stephen. If I decide to try to prototype this out, > where is a good place to lay down some code? > > > Cheers, > Paul > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Stephen Connolly < > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I think having an assembly type with a default binding of assembly:single > > to the packaging phase and a default descriptor being the zip or zip and > > tar.gz descriptors would achieve what is required while simplifying > > escalating to more complex descriptors > > > > On Thursday, December 11, 2014, Timothy Astle <timothy.as...@caris.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I have a situation/problem/use-case where I would like to take a > > > collection of XML schemas and create a bundle of themso that they could > > be > > > included into other projects. The destination projects vary. Some are > > > written in Java, some in C++, etc. So I'd like to produce amore > platform > > > agnostic bundling artifact. At the moment, we lean on Subversion > > externals, > > > which I really dislike doing. > > > > > > In this type of case, I figured a ZIP packaging type would have > described > > > the project and produced the expected output, while using Maven. A big > > > thing that I like about Maven is how you model the project. Plugins are > > > great, but opening up a POM and seeing the packaging type is just so > nice > > > and explicit. > > > > > > There are several ways I can accomplish my goal, but somewhere, > deepdown, > > > Ihad hoped that I'd live long enough to see a first-class ZIP packaging > > > type become available. :-) > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > On 11/12/2014 4:41 AM, domi wrote: > > > > > >> Hmm, not sure I agree - I think its just fact that users would love to > > >> have simpler way to create ZIPs/TARs > > >> and the most logical/simple way (from a users point of view) to do > this > > >> is a packaging typ for these. > > >> Domi > > >> > > >> > > >> On 11.12.2014, at 09:27, Stephen Connolly < > > >> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> Well the real question is what would you do with dependencies? > > >>> > > >>> So, for example, if you have a zip dependency, do you unpack it and > > >>> overlay > > >>> or do you copy it in? Or do you do nothing and leave it to the > > dependency > > >>> plugin? > > >>> > > >>> What about zip vs tar.gz dependency? If building a zip I might expect > > >>> exploding the zip dependencies and copy tar.gz? > > >>> > > >>> A better approach might be an "assembly" packaging with a default > > >>> assembly descriptor directory and if empty it falls back to zip and > > >>> tar.gz > > >>> of target/classes with the resources plugin being in the default > > >>> lifecycle > > >>> binding > > >>> > > >>> That would make using the assembly plugin less work and ack the fact > > >>> that a > > >>> zip or tar.gz needs the descriptor to control file permissions > > >>> > > >>> On Thursday, December 11, 2014, Anders Hammar <and...@hammar.net> > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Yes, but I don't think making a specific plugin just for adding zip > > >>>> packaging is optimal. Hence the idea of having it in the assembly > > >>>> plugin. > > >>>> Thinking of it though, one very likely wants to create both a zip > and > > a > > >>>> tar > > >>>> file. So maybe the packaging type should be something else, and then > > it > > >>>> creates both types. But then I always advocate that one maven > project > > >>>> should only create one artifact...hmm. > > >>>> > > >>>> /Anders > > >>>> > > >>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Paul Benedict < > pbened...@apache.org > > >>>> <javascript:;>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Anders, like make a maven-zip-plugin project? > > >>>>> On Dec 11, 2014 1:50 AM, "Anders Hammar" <and...@hammar.net > > >>>>> > > >>>> <javascript:;>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> I don't think that the zip package type should be part of Maven > core, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> but > > >>>> > > >>>>> we could provide some plugin which provides for it as a custom > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> packaging > > >>>> > > >>>>> type. Possibly this could be part of the assembly plugin. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> /Anders > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Paul Benedict < > > pbened...@apache.org > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> <javascript:;>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Well my experience in building a zip *as a dependency* feels like > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> it's > > >>>> > > >>>>> hackish. For example, I create a "pom" packaging type and then > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> configure > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> the assembly plugin for the "package" phase. Okay, but I say this > is > > >>>>>>> hackish because it's not straight forward, and the zip is a > second > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> artifact > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> (the pom is first) for installation. This pattern kind of smells > to > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> me > > >>>> > > >>>>> and > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> makes me think an official "zip" type really is needed. Having > > such a > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> type > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> can take away all this boilerplate. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>>>> Paul > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Kristian Rosenvold < > > >>>>>>> kristian.rosenv...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Probably because people just use the assembly plugin ? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Kristian > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> 2014-12-11 6:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> <javascript:;>>: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Recently I needed to create zip artifacts for overlays into WAR. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Maven > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> doesn't have support for "zip" packaging type projects, but > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> MNG-1683 > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> wants > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> to introduce it. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I am curious why this issue has been ignored. Is it just a lack > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> of > > >>>> > > >>>>> time > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> or > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> interest? Or is there a philosophical issue behind the delay? I > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> can't > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> see > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> much difference between the zip lifecycle and jar lifecycle > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> except > > >>>> > > >>>>> there > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> no default "compile" or "test" bindings. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>>>>>> Paul > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>> --------- > > >>>> > > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> <javascript:;> > > >>>> > > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> <javascript:;> > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Sent from my phone > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > -- > > Sent from my phone > > >
