Sounds like my installer idea will solve your problem and be much easier
to maintain.
Develop the code in a set of projects that don't care about deployment
and have one or more projects that know about installation requirements
and build one or more installers that deal with all of the configuration
files and directory structures required to support all of the delivery
platforms that you need to support.
- developers do not have to worry about any run-time other than the one
used for testing.
- new run-time platforms can be supported without screwing with the
software build processes.
- experts in the supported platforms can play with the Maven installer
projects without disrupting the developers.
- the final deliverables will be easier to understand and deploy since
each installer package supports exactly what it is supposed to and does
not require any detailed knowledge about the structure of the
application to install it. (The system adnmin can select the right OS,
select the library configuration, the container, etc. and the installer
will assemble the right components and install them in the environment.)
- the installer project is easy to set up and once it is done, it is as
stable as the configuration files are.
Ron
On 19/10/2015 11:26 AM, Patrick Sansoucy wrote:
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
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
