Hi Simon! Thanks for your help...
On 27 Feb 2014, Simon Lessard wrote: > Hi Martin, > > Your definition of the skinny WAR is very slightly off and that may or not > solve your issue. A skinny WAR is not necessarily a WAR from which *all* > WEB-INF/lib was stripped, but rather one where all of its dependencies that > are shared by another module in the EAR gets stripped. You are right: skinny WARs might still contain some JARs in WEB-INF/lib. > For example, let say > you have: > > WAR1 depends on artifact1 and artifact2 > WAR2 depends on artifact2 and artifact3 > EJB-JAR depends on artifact1 > > Then the EAR's lib should contain artifact1 and artifact2, WAR1 should not > contain any lib, WAR2 should still contain artifact3. Now, in your case, if > your EAR contains 2 JSF application WARs, then your issue still stands and > I cannot really see how you'll be able to get truly skinny WAR as indeed > you must not remove the JSF related artifacts from the WARs. However, if > your EAR is a single WAR and some EJB/MDB then the skinny WAR should work > just fine (it's what we use here and it work fine, the web related > libraries stay in the WAR and don'T get promoted to the EAR). I have another concrete example with a single WAR where OmniFaces is a dependency by the WAR and by some EJB JAR, both contained in the EAR. The OmniFaces JAR goes in the EARs lib folder and thus OmniFaces ist not fully usable without workarounds. See also my question on StackOverflow: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/22046464/how-to-correctly-use-omnifaces-in-an-ear So even with your definition of a skinny WAR the problem still exists. Some more ideas? - martin PS: I know this is not really a maven problem but maven-war-plugin and maven-ear-plugin both have support for skinny WARs so I was hoping to find some help here.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
