I've had a look at the code. Kill it!
On 25 November 2012 20:22, Benson Margulies <[email protected]> wrote: > Given that all it turns out to *do* is to construct finalName, I am > perfectly willing to kill it. If bentmann decides to relax his vow of > never talking to us, I'm happy to hear what he says. > > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Stephen Connolly > <[email protected]> wrote: > > No. Not expected to remember... But sometimes one does... especially > > bentmann in my experience ;-) > > > > On Sunday, 25 November 2012, Anders Hammar wrote: > > > >> Just a check, is one supposed to remember why one did something 4.5 > years > >> ago? I can hardly remember what I did last week.... > >> > >> I'm currently searching JIRA to see if I can find a ticket that would > match > >> Benjamin's fix. > >> > >> /Anders > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Stephen Connolly < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > So it is not to create the shaded artifact at a different coordinate > >> > without requiring the creation of an additional module? > >> > > >> > I agree it seems a tad insane, but if we could get bentmann to chime > in > >> as > >> > to what it is actually supposed to do, then I think we can make a > correct > >> > decision... > >> > > >> > Of course the code may not work... Which is a different issue... > >> > > >> > But having to create a module with a Pom that has to be kept in sync > just > >> > to put the shaded artifact with dependency reduced Pom at a different > >> > coordinate... Does seem wasteful... Otoh how is the reactor to know > the > >> > artifact will magically appear and hence produce the correct build > >> plan... > >> > > >> > So I have nearly convinced myself that it is insane... But let's ask! > >> > > >> > On Sunday, 25 November 2012, Benson Margulies wrote: > >> > > >> > > I am fairly depressed here, and I agree with Anders. > >> > > > >> > > The shadedArtifactId was added in svn rev 640405 by bbentman. > >> > > > >> > > The log for that change consists of: > >> > > > >> > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > > r640405 | bentmann | 2008-03-24 09:17:58 -0400 (Mon, 24 Mar 2008) | > 1 > >> > line > >> > > > >> > > o Added svn:eol-style=native > >> > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > > > >> > > That really does not shed any light. Further, the name is completely > >> > > misleading. it does not, in fact, change how the attach happens, it > is > >> > > just a baroque means of specifying the final name in pieces. So I > >> > > modify my proposal to consist of: > >> > > > >> > > attach > >> > > > >> > > attachClassifier > >> > > > >> > > outputDirectory > >> > > > >> > > finalName > >> > > > >> > > no sub-objects. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Benson Margulies < > >> [email protected] > >> > > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > Anders, > >> > > > > >> > > > I'm willing to go on a history expedition to see who added the > >> > > > feature. The MavenProjectHelper API suports this feature, let > alone > >> > > > the naked MavenProject API. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Anders Hammar <[email protected] > > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > >>> > How would you attach an artifact with a DIFFERENT artifactId > than > >> > the > >> > > >>> > project? It doesn't make sense. > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> This is *already* a feature of the plugin. I didn't invent it, > I'm > >> > > >>> just trying to clean up how your configure it. > >> > > >>> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Why would you try to clean up how to configure something that > >> doesn't > >> > > make > >> > > >> sense and is plain wrong? Maven is about best-practices and we > >> should > >> > > help > >> > > >> people do the right thing. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> And btw, finalName should be nuked out of the Maven world. :-) > >> > > >> > >> > > >> /Anders > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > I would vote for doing changes that make it impossible to use > the > >> > > plugin > >> > > >>> as > >> > > >>> > I-would-like-to-create-any-file-the-way-i-used-to-with-Ant > >> > solution. > >> > > I > >> > > >>> > think that the possibilities to alter the final name of the > built > >> > > >>> artifact > >> > > >>> > fools people into thinking that you can specify the name of > the > >> > > artifact. > >> > > >>> > You migth be able to specify the name of the build file in the > >> > build > >> > > >>> > folder, but that's not something you should create a build > >> solution > >> > > >>> around. > >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> Well, finalName in the pom it > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
