Re, Basically, the end result would be to support multiple teams with multiple web application servers and setup (shared libs vs non shared libs). Thus each internal team does not go back and forth between setups/server. For a vast majority of cases, the decision is done once, at the start of the project, and you live with it.
As for the question, like I said previously, the release drives a single artifact 'type', not a portfolio. The profile idea is basically used only to support the initial branching for the teams. Never thought about the Invoker plugin that way. I had suggested of using it to test the templating of the archetypes themselves, but not more. Since using profiles means that you have to execute the build itself to validate, while using the archetype, you test the structure and content of the created project, which I find easier. Patrick Sansoucy In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is ... On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: > Once you've run an archetype, you have a new project. And you're stuck > with it, in the sense that you have to keep it maintained. > > An important question is this: what artifacts do you want to make as > part of a release? If you want a portfolio of artifacts, each for one > of your scenarios, then profiles aren't very useful, but the invoker > plugin might be. > > On the other hand, if you never make releases, and you just want to > run various build with various results, then profiles can be > convenient. > > The invoker is generally used for testing, and I've never tried it as > a solution to DRY-ing up a build that has to produce multiple small > variations. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org > >
