08:18 -!- Irssi: Starting query in codehaus with brett
08:18 <SteveC> ok so this is animal-sniffer related
08:18 <SteveC> the primary reason I had for the lifecycle is JRE signatures
08:19 <brett> yup
08:19 <SteveC> first off
08:19 <SteveC> if I'm ditching the lifecycle
08:19 <SteveC> I remove the lifecycle mapping from components.xml
08:20 <SteveC> should I remove the artifactHandler config as well?
08:20 <brett> that's only needed if you are keeping the packaging / type
08:20 <SteveC> I have the artifact handler config at the moment to ensure
that
IncludesDependencies = true and isAddedToClasspath = false
08:21 <SteveC> I need to keep the artifact type as these are not jar files
08:21 <brett> that's unnecessary if you put it into a plugin dependency
instead
08:21 <brett> what type of file are they?
08:21 <SteveC> GZipOutputStream(ObjectOutputStream)
08:22 <SteveC> [this is the code Kohsuke wrote]
08:22 <SteveC> while I could change the format, it would mean that it was
not backwards
compatible with the signatures he generated
08:23 <SteveC> and OK, so I'm generating my own set of signatures in order
to get them
onto central
08:23 <brett> no, that makes sense
08:23 <brett> I see where you are going
08:23 <brett> you don't need the artifact handler if type = extension, which
will make it
easier for users
08:23 <brett> but the lifecycle still might make sense to default bind the
executions
08:24 <SteveC> hmmm
08:24 <SteveC> well packaging = extension
08:24 <SteveC> they're both .signature at the moment
08:25 <brett> so the default will work there
08:25 <SteveC> if you say so
08:25 <SteveC> ;-)
08:26 <SteveC> would you mind if i posted this transcript on the mailing
list?
08:27 <brett> that's fine
08:27 <SteveC> ok, so to summarise, you now are in favour of a lifecycle
mapping?
08:28 <SteveC> or does it still smell bad?
08:28 <SteveC> [benjamin suggested initially that it smelled bad, hence the
question on
the list]
08:29 <brett> well I think coming up with an arbitary format "just 'cause"
is what smells
bad :)
08:29 <brett> I think you can avoid it (basically follow the pattern of the
assembly
plugin)
08:29 <SteveC> ok, so the justification is backwards compat with Kohsuke's
orignal format
08:30 <brett> but if you feel like it makes it easier to work with (esp. if
there are
multiple bindings needed to do the work), then go for it
08:30 <brett> I don't think that's really relevant from what I understand
08:30 <brett> the artifact handler works as is
08:30 <brett> the lifecycle definition just allows you to preconfigure
certain bindings
08:30 <brett> is that right?
08:30 <SteveC> yep
08:30 <SteveC> and I only need one execution... so OK, no lifecycle
08:31 <SteveC> and no artifact handler => no component.xml
08:31 <SteveC> to generate sigs of JRE's you will need to use a
<packaging>pom</packaging> module
08:31 <brett> and no <extensions> in the plugin which is good for users
2009/9/10 Brett Porter <[email protected]>
> I agree with the subsequent discussion that I'm not sure why you need a
> lifecycle for it, but that doesn't seem relevant to your question:
>
> On 10/09/2009, at 2:36 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
> The question comes, where do we put the configuration about what signature
>> to check.
>>
>
> Solution 3, in a plugin dependency. It keeps it out of the project
> dependency list but retains proper ordering in recent versions of Maven.
> There are bugs with plugin dependencies if you have multiple instances of
> the plugin in a reactor in Maven 2, fixed in Maven 3 trunk.
>
> - Brett
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>
