I like this approach as well. Having to have an attached artifact to have a zip or tar.gz with a meaningless pom or jar always seemed a bit weird.
manfred Stephen Connolly wrote on 11.12.2014 07:14: > 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 >> > >>>> <java script:;>> wrote: >> > >>>> >> > >>>> Anders, like make a maven-zip-plugin project? >> > >>>>> On Dec 11, 2014 1:50 AM, "Anders Hammar" <and...@hammar.net >> > >>>>> >> > >>>> <java script:;>> 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 >> > >>>>>> >> > >>>>> <java script:;>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>>> 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 <java script:;>> wrote: >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> Probably because people just use the assembly plugin ? >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> Kristian >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> 2014-12-11 6:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> <java script:;>>: >> > >>>> >> > >>>>> 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 >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> <java script:;> >> > >>>> >> > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> <java script:;> >> > >>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> > >>> -- >> > >>> Sent from my phone >> > >>> >> > >> >> > > >> > >> > -- >> > Sent from my phone >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
