I had some ideas about expanding classifier usage for use with NMaven. May be worth a look: http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVENUSER/Expanded+Classifier+Support
Shane On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Jesse McConnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > Maybe we extend the definition of a classifier to explicitly refer to > things > > like sources and javadocs which have no impact on the dependency > > requirements. GWT for the MAC is really a different artifact then GWT for > > Linux and maybe we should just start treating them as such. > > > > This is what I was thinking when reading through this thread. Jan has > grumbled about us maven guys and our double standards every time I > pull out the classifier card in jetty. I have defended it because of > things like the sources and javadoc are perfect additive artifact-lite > additions to the repository and metadata of an artifact. But they are > linked to that core artifact in question very strongly. As soon as we > start adding classifiers for things like jdk version and need to alter > the core dependency set associated with the artifact it feels like we > have lost our way a bit. > > classifiers have become a bit like profiles in that sense, they are a > point in maven that is easy to abuse and we are increasingly abusing > it...Just the other day the apacheds guys were trying to get test > cases from one artifact usable in another and it seemed logical to > wrap those tests up in a classifier and use them (which we advocate in > places) but that didn't really cut it, they didn't want to extend the > test classes in the test classified component, they wanted the actual > tests run, probably configured to use some new component. Sure this > could be added to surefire if there is a way to looking up the > classnames with Test in them.. but you could do it _now_ under the > current classifier setup if you produce a new artifact that is > composed of the test source itself and then dropping that source into > a place to be compiled and used as tests...(they didn't do this I > don't think) > > my point is that this is quickly leaving the realm of 'one artifact > per pom' since we can easily have multi-purpose artifacts being > produced...and if it can be done it probably will be done (or I have > already done it and busted something else :P) > > jesse > > -- > jesse mcconnell > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
