On 02/11/05, Kenney Westerhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Mark Hobson wrote: > > Just some thoughts: > > The 'war' packaging _NEEDS_ a .war to be produced in case it will be used > in an ear. If you replace the war packaging by 'exploded', then there is > no artifact which will fail the install goal etc.
This is true, but I guess the lifecycle would only be modified if the tomcat:exploded goal was present in the list of goals to execute - kinda smells of undeterministic behaviour though.. > People want to test their webapps without running the war:war goal > since it is so slow. I can understand that. > > Perhaps a new lifecycle phase 'dev' or something, just before 'package', > might be useful in this case. Maybe a 'prepare-package' phase? I'm not sure how this would work with war:inplace though, since the results of this goal are mutually exclusive to the war:exploded and war:war goals. > Another way would be to optimize the WarMojo to update the .war instead of > recreating it each time. Then the war:war will always run, and you bind > war:exploded to the package phase too. This will eliminate the performance > penalty, I hope. This would certainly help, although tomcat:inplace still wouldn't be able to depend on war:inplace. Cheers, Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
