[
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MASSEMBLY-151?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_119565
]
Tuomas Kiviaho commented on MASSEMBLY-151:
------------------------------------------
Interpolation precedence,
Current description of outputFileNameMapping did not give any clues that such
prefixes as 'module.' 'artifact.' and 'pom.' existed. There aren't any examples
of how to reference artifact at hand. outputDirectory has also similar extra
features available, but they are not documented on site.
I just spent some time to discover the semantics from within source code where
they were well documented
(org.apache.maven.plugin.assembly.utils.AssemblyFormatUtils) but for general
documentation too technically oriented as-is. Following version removal example
could be added to including-and-excluding-artifacts.apt
<dependencySets>
<dependencySet>
...
<outputFileNameMapping>
${artifact.artifactId}${dashClassifier?}.${artifact.extension}
</outputFileNameMapping>
</dependencySet>
..
</dependencySets>
> Documentation for the assembly plugin is utterly confusing
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MASSEMBLY-151
> URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MASSEMBLY-151
> Project: Maven 2.x Assembly Plugin
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 2.1, 2.2
> Reporter: Nigel Magnay
> Fix For: 2.2-beta-2
>
>
> This is going to come across as a whinge, I'm afraid, but the assembly plugin
> is a fairly important vital component in M2; I find it very confusing and
> I've been using it for a bit. I have observed it putting off other people
> from using m2 at all, which is I think a shame.
> I'd document it myself, but I don't understand the differences between some
> of the goals (and I don't understand why the fix in MASSEMBLY-97 is
> neccessary).
> In the goals page,there's lots of options that seem to overlap or do the same
> thing. There's no clue (other than trial and error) as to why some of them
> will work some times, and some will not (e.g. in multiproject builds). What's
> worse is some of the problems only appear in specific circumstances (E.g.
> doing multiprojects in a 'clean' build').
> This either needs documenting, or (better), fixing in the code. We have (from
> the site):
> assembly:assembly Assemble an application bundle or distribution
> from an assembly descriptor.
> Good, seems logical to me
> assembly:unpack Unpack project dependencies. Currently supports
> dependencies of type jar and zip.
> The reverse. Yep.
> assembly:attached Assemble an application bundle or distribution from an
> assembly descriptor. Do not specify a phase, so make it usable in a reactor
> environment where forking would create issues.
> Erk? How should a user read this? To me "usable in a reactor environment
> where forking would create issues" reads to me as "there's a bug in
> assembly:assembly if used in a multiproject build".
> - it assumes that the user knows a multi project build is a 'reactor' build
> - why can't assembly:assembly be fixed so it does work in multiproject
> builds? Why can't it detect the environment, and do the 'right thing' (or at
> the very least spit out a warning) ?
> This is just inviting the user to pick the wrong goal.
> assembly:directory Assemble an application bundle or distribution.
> Without a descriptor? If I click the link to the goal parameters for this or
> for assembly:assembly, I get identical pages of parameters. How is this
> different?
> assembly:directory-inline Assemble an application bundle or distribution
> from an assembly descriptor without launching a parallel lifecycle build.
> In what scenarios would I as a user need this? Is it for a bug workaround?
> Would it not be better as a parameter to turn off/on "parallel lifecycle
> build" ?
> assembly:single Assemble an application bundle or distribution from an
> assembly descriptor. Do not specify a phase, so make it usable in a reactor
> environment where forking would create issues. Do not specify it as an
> aggregator, so it is only for a single project. Both cases aid it in working
> around issues with the Maven lifecycle that should be addressed in Maven 2.1.
> A whole heap of information that seems to boil down to "there is a bug", and
> a heap of confusing terminology ("do not specify it as an aggregator").
> When should this be used ? Every time you actually want assembly:assembly in
> a multiproject build? How is it different to assembly:attached?
> It seems to me that the plugin does 2 things. (pack things, unpack things).
> All these additional goals seem to be (I can't tell this) workarounds for
> bugs.
> Why can't we just have
> assembly:assembly
> and
> assembly:unpack
> and make the plugin work properly? If multiproject builds fail on fork, then
> stop the plugin from forking until it can be fixed (or keep it as a cryptic
> option for people that really want to optimise their builds rather than
> confusing new customers).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
