> The Enunciate plugin "attaches" its own artifact with a unique artifactId.
Do you have an example of this? I checked the docs ( http://enunciate.codehaus.org/executables.html#maven) and I can't see this. > I'm not sure of the implementation details, but it's got its own > install-artifact and deploy-artifact goals that do the work. Those just work the same way as install:install-file and deploy:deploy-file, which are not supposed to be bound a project's build lifecycle. At least that's how I read the plugin's documentation. /Anders > (Just to note that there's at least one other plugin doing something > similar, not making a claim that it's right or wrong to do so.) > > Anders Hammar <[email protected]> wrote: > > How would you attach an artifact with a DIFFERENT artifactId than the >> project? It doesn't make sense. >> >> 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. >> >> /Anders >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Benson Margulies >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> Shade has a collection of related parameters for controlling where >>> >> the >> >>> results end up. To me, they feel like a collection of individual >>> >> items >> >>> that are fairly confusing to the reader of the documentation. >>> >>> Since I'm planning to bump the major version and change the behavior, >>> I'd like to consider rationalizing all of them. >>> >>> It seems to me that there are, in fact, three modes of operation: >>> >>> 1) replace the primary artifact of the project. >>> 2) attach an artifact with the user's choice of artifactId and >>> >> classifier. >> >>> 3) just drop a file someplace. >>> >>> In modes (1) and (2), it's also reasonable for the user to control >>> >> the >> >>> filename in the output directory, since every other plugin seems to >>> allow that. >>> >>> So, what do people think of the following: >>> >>> Four parameters: >>> >>> <attach>true/false</attach> >>> >>> <attachArtifact> >>> <artifactId/> >>> <classifier/> >>> </attachArtifact> >>> >>> <outputDirectory/> >>> <finalName/> >>> >>> This puts all the information about the attached result in one place. >>> Shade is the only plugin I know that allows you to attach with your >>> choice of artifactId. >>> >>> To replace the primary artifact, the user would write: >>> >>> <artifactId>${project.**artifactId}</artifactId> >>> <classifier/> >>> >>> The defaults would be: >>> >>> <attach>true</attach> >>> >>> <attachArtifactId> >>> <artifactId>${project.**artifactId}</artifactId> >>> <classifier>shaded</**classifier> >>> </attachArtifactId> >>> >>> <outputDirectory>${project.**buildDirectory}</**outputDirectory> >>> >>> >>> >>> <finalName>${attachArtifact.**artifactId}-${attachArtifact.** >> classifier}-${project.version}**.jar</finalName> >> >> >>> ------------------------------**------------------------------** >>> --------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>> [email protected].**org<[email protected]> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >>> >>> > -- > "Fighting a war is easy. Destroying is easy. Building a new world out of > what's left of the old, that is what's hard." —J. Michael Straczynski > > > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [email protected].**org<[email protected]> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
