Christian, I am in agreement. Do you have a suggestion on how to identify the resource file name? Right now the <type> implies the extension. I have an idea in mind, but don't want to bias anyone before they give their feedback. Thoughts? And if anyone else has a solution to propose, please respond, too. Thank you.
Cheers, Paul On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Christian Schulte <c...@schulte.it> wrote: > Am 08/17/16 um 21:57 schrieb Paul Benedict: > > to me... but it does raise the bigger issue regarding Maven and > > resource-only artifacts. Except for the "pom" packaging type, every other > > type relates to code, no? The current core packaging values are: pom, > jar, > > maven-plugin, ejb, war, ear, rar, par. So I think it behooves us we get > the > > first non-code type handled correctly. Just my 2 cents. > > In my opinion a resource only artifact should not be about any > file-format. It's just a file. Can be anything > (ZIP,txt,doc,tar,xz,avi,mpg,jpg,etc.). You end up wanting to create an > archive containing lots of these resource files so you do not need to > list 100+ dependencies in the POM for every single file. Choice of the > archive is up to you. Can be ZIP - can be something else. For plugins it > should be just a file to copy around without any file-format specific > handling like unpacking. If special handling like unpacking is needed, > it's no longer a resource only artifact but some kind of archive > artifact. The remote resources plugin is pretty much what users are > going to use for something like this. > > Regards, > -- > Christian > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
