Well if we need to get a supporting change into core, and this feature only works on newer versions of maven, falling back to the old way. I think we can live with that. If anything it would be a driver for people to upgrade ;-)
On Saturday, 24 November 2012, Benson Margulies wrote: > I'm having a bit of a pause figuring out how to implement Stephen's idea. > > The crux here is to tell the reactor that the official output of shade > should function in the reactor as the primary result artifact of the > current project, *without* overwriting the usual file name. Since the > jar plugin will have already attached something without a type or > classifier, another call to > org.apache.maven.project.DefaultMavenProjectHelper#attachArtifact with > null classifier and type would result in a > DuplicateArtifactAttachmentException. > > I could certainly launch into an addition to the project helper API, > though I'd need some help understanding the compatibility management > of such change. > > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Stephen Connolly > <[email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: > > And you'll recall my vote is for 3.0 (assuming the idea works and you > > decide to go ahead with it, that is) > > > > [Briefly, for anyone who is interested, the idea is to replace the > artifact > > attached to the reactor, rather than replace the file... Thus jar:jar's > > output will be the responsibility of jar:jar and shade:shade can just > > compare timestamps against its peevious output and be happy if it has a > > no-op. people relying on the actual files in target having specific names > > will have issues until they adapt (or switch the flag back to the pre-3.0 > > behaviour). People interacting with the repo will be unaffected.] > > > > - Stephen > > > > On Friday, 23 November 2012, Benson Margulies wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Jochen Wiedmann > >> <[email protected] <javascript:;> <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> > This would be an incompatible change, would it? > >> > >> Yes, indeed, insofar as anyone who scripted to expect the shaded > >> version to be sitting in target under finalName would be broken > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Benson Margulies < > >> [email protected] <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>wrote: > >> > > >> >> I want to take up a suggestion of Stephen Connolly and fix the > >> >> interactions between shade and jar by changing the default file name > >> >> of 'replacing' shaded jars. I'd like incremental jar-ing to work by > >> >> default, so I want to change the default behavior. 2.1 or 3.0? > >> >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > >> >> [email protected]<javascript:;><javascript:;> > >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]<javascript:;> > <javascript:;> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > The best argument for celibacy is that the clergy will sooner or later > >> > become extinct. > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> <javascript:;><javascript:;> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: > >> [email protected]<javascript:;><javascript:;> > >> > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] <javascript:;> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] <javascript:;> > >
