Actually, before we jump into this, let's consider the use case at hand. While easily solved by pre-package at this point, we may find other needs.

Currently, *-resources handles class path resources, which are required to be treated separately to the package because in many cases, such as a webapp, the package is not equal to the set of classpath resources (or equivalent for whatever other language is being dealt with).

Here, we are processing 'resources' for the package (assembly, war, tomcat installation, etc). pre-package is basically just a different process-resources phase.

So, instead of the addition to the 'pre-package' phase, should we consider generate-package-resources and process-package-resources phases prior to 'package' in the lifecycle? This would allow us to generalise the 'resource' lifecycle steps in the same way as for regular resources, and test resources, including adding '<packageResources/>' to the POM as a replacement for the custom webResources configuration for the war plugin and as a way of introducing things to assemblies without the descriptor (allowing for more generalised descriptors as we recently discussed).

Thoughts?

- Brett

On 04/12/2006, at 9:59 PM, Michael Horwitz wrote:

Hi,

As a side note it strikes me that the primary problem is that the war:war goal does a little too much in a single go during the packaging phase. Could the issue be solved by spreading the work of the war:war goal through the
existing phases?

Mike Horwitz


On 12/4/06, Mark Hobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 03/12/06, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pretty sure the issue already exists... should just be done IMO.

Ah-ha, found it.. :)

http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-2097

Mark

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to