I originally started this thread on the users list and Franz suggested that we move it over to the dev list. Does anybody have any thoughts on all of this?
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gregory Kick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Jan 17, 2007 11:10 PM Subject: Re: Source Archives: Source Plugin vs. Assembly Plugin To: Maven Users List <users@maven.apache.org> Franz, On 1/14/07, franz see <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Good day to you, Gregory, Actually, the plugin does not define the lifecycle. Rather, it's the packaging type which defines the default goal bindings to the lifecycle phases.
That's what I meant. Sorry for misspeaking.
Regarding consolidating the functionality in order to minimize the effort across pugins - if you're referring to implementation-wise, I think they are using a common component for the assembly.
I hadn't really looked into it in the source, but like I said in the my message to Dennis, we end up with multiple goals with the same parameters. Not a huge deal, but it seems a bit silly...
Also, IMHO, eventhough source and javadoc are both "auxiliary" artifacts, they're both common functionalities just like the jars, wars, etc. Thus, I don't find any fault with the existence of source:jar and javadoc:jar. The assembly plugin is usually used for the uncommon use cases.
Yes, I think that that is what Dennis was saying as well. My thought was that now that the assembly plugin seems to have matured into something more stable, it might be worth using it in the common cases as well.
As for knowing all the artifacts being generated by a build, maybe creating a report would be better ( though I am not sure how though :) ).
Actually, I made one. It was a pain to get it to work correctly and it's pretty hackish. I'd much rather just be able to manage the assembly plugin and be done with it.
But if you want, you can take this up in the maven dev list to get more inputs :)
Alright, lets see what they have to say.
Just my 2 cents worth. Franz Gregory Kick-2 wrote: > > Franz, > > The difference that I see between the sources and javadoc plugins and > jar, war, etc. is that plugins like the jar plugin actually define the > lifecycle for that particular packaging. Since source and javadoc > jars are "auxiliary" artifacts, it seems as though it would make more > sense to consolidate that functionality in order to minimize effort > across the plugins. Also, it seems like it would be much more > convenient to look look at the descriptorRefs tag and see __every__ > artifact that was being generated (aside from the default, "main" > artifact). > > Aside from it already being implemented, was there a specific reason > for sources and javadoc to create their own jars? > > On 1/12/07, franz see <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Good day to you, Gregory, >> >> I think it is simply for ease of use. Intead of configuring the assembly >> plugin, you can simply do mvn sources:jar. Same goes for the other >> packaing >> goals ( jar:jar, javadoc:jar, ejb:ejb, ejb3:ejb3, war:war, ear:ear, etc >> ). >> Usually, you don't have to use the assembly plugin because the other >> packaging goals are much easier to use. But if those goals are not enough >> for your needs, then go for the assembly plugin. >> >> As for the difference between -sources and -src, I am not sure myself :-) >> >> Cheers, >> Franz >> >> >> Gregory Kick-2 wrote: >> > >> > After looking through the documentation for each of these plugins, I >> > am left with a few questions: >> > >> > - Isn't the functionality of the source plugin just a subset of the >> > assembly plugin (i.e. couldn't I just use the assembly plugin to do >> > the same thing and only have to worry about one plugin)? >> > >> > - Is there a reason that the assembly plugin uses -src for its >> > archives while the sources plugin uses -sources? >> > >> > - Should the Source Plugin be deprecated for a pre-defined assembly >> > descriptor with the same behavior? >> > >> > -- >> > Gregory Kick >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > >> > >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/Source-Archives%3A-Source-Plugin-vs.-Assembly-Plugin-tf2963424s177.html#a8292765 >> Sent from the Maven - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > > -- > Gregory Kick > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Source-Archives%3A-Source-Plugin-vs.-Assembly-Plugin-tf2963424s177.html#a8350410 Sent from the Maven - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Gregory Kick [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Gregory Kick [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
