> I agree that we should teach the Maven plug-in to use artifacts > currently attached to the session. Do you think it's preferable to have > a config option in the Maven plug-in that adds some attached artifacts > to the feature model or that they are added to the feature model files > as all bundles are?
i think it should not require a special config option in the maven plugin for this - the maven plugin should behave to detect attached artifacts from the current build automatically, and pass that information over to the launcher. i agree we don't want to run into the problems again you solved with starting the forked process. in my pov it's not enough to pass over path e.g. to the target directory where the immediate jar files are located - they do not necessarily use the correct file name conventions there, and in a multi-module build multiple target folders are involved. instead, we should pass over a list of maven artifact coordinates which are attached to the current build, each with the file location of that file. but that's a bit complicated to pass over as command line arguments. should we invent an (optional) configuration file for the feature launcher jar to pass this over? (btw., i would prefer to define an actual dependency between the feature launcher maven plugin and the feature launcher jar, instead of just configuration the version in a property (but still keeping the current way how it's actually used) - with that you can managed the version used by the plugin by standard means, overwrite the plugin dependency if needed, and have that version management detected by tools like renovate automatically without relying on a proprietary property in doing this - but this is an unrelated topic and more cosmetic.) stefan
