You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to npanday-dev@incubator.apache.org by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> on 2012/09/26 05:01:30 UTC
Re: svn commit: r1333788 - in /incubator/npanday/trunk:
dotnet/assemblies/NPanday.ProjectImporter/Engine/src/main/csharp/Converter/Algorithms/
dotnet/assemblies/NPanday.ProjectImporter/Engine/src/test/resource/MvcApplication1/MvcApplication1/
dotnet/
Hi Lars,
I'm looking into the test failures, and this commit broke the existing POMs
that referred to 'create-package':
On 4 May 2012 17:18, <lc...@apache.org> wrote:
> Author: lcorneliussen
> Date: Fri May 4 07:18:12 2012
> New Revision: 1333788
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1333788&view=rev
> Log:
> [NPANDAY-488] Packaging for Web Applications (also Azure Web Roles)
> [NPANDAY-563] Generic MSDeploy synchronization mojo
>
> o support for iisApp packaging and deployment
>
It seems to me that this could be better achieved by keeping
create-package, and adding a parameter to determine what the source
provider is, rather than subclassing the mojo (as the subclasses don't add
any different configuration arguments). Given that application-maven-plugin
and azure-maven-plugin both use create-package, the consistency might be
good to keep too.
WDYT?
- Brett
--
Brett Porter
http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
Re: create-package?
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 09/11/2012, at 12:38 AM, Lars Corneliussen <me...@lcorneliussen.de> wrote:
> iirc i "forked" create-package to create-content-package and create-iisApp-package
>
> create-content-package should be the "old" behavior…
Right, so the options are:
- update existing POMs (not a big deal, we haven't released it yet)
- alias create-package to c-content-package
- change c-content-package back to c-package
- rather than fork the mojos, have a single one with a configuration parameter to determine the type
Given the configuration arguments are the same, I'm inclined to do the last one - unless I'm missing something? The consistency in the name with azure-m-p is probably helpful.
- Brett
>
> Am 08.11.2012 um 14:35 schrieb Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>:
>
>> Hi Lars,
>>
>> You might have missed this because of the original subject - any thoughts?
>>
>> On 26/09/2012, at 3:01 PM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Lars,
>>>
>>> I'm looking into the test failures, and this commit broke the existing POMs that referred to 'create-package':
>>>
>>> On 4 May 2012 17:18, <lc...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Author: lcorneliussen
>>> Date: Fri May 4 07:18:12 2012
>>> New Revision: 1333788
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1333788&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> [NPANDAY-488] Packaging for Web Applications (also Azure Web Roles)
>>> [NPANDAY-563] Generic MSDeploy synchronization mojo
>>>
>>> o support for iisApp packaging and deployment
>>>
>>> It seems to me that this could be better achieved by keeping create-package, and adding a parameter to determine what the source provider is, rather than subclassing the mojo (as the subclasses don't add any different configuration arguments). Given that application-maven-plugin and azure-maven-plugin both use create-package, the consistency might be good to keep too.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> - Brett
>>>
>>> --
>>> Brett Porter
>>> http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
>>
>
Re: create-package?
Posted by Lars Corneliussen <me...@lcorneliussen.de>.
iirc i "forked" create-package to create-content-package and create-iisApp-package
create-content-package should be the "old" behavior…
Am 08.11.2012 um 14:35 schrieb Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>:
> Hi Lars,
>
> You might have missed this because of the original subject - any thoughts?
>
> On 26/09/2012, at 3:01 PM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Lars,
>>
>> I'm looking into the test failures, and this commit broke the existing POMs that referred to 'create-package':
>>
>> On 4 May 2012 17:18, <lc...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Author: lcorneliussen
>> Date: Fri May 4 07:18:12 2012
>> New Revision: 1333788
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1333788&view=rev
>> Log:
>> [NPANDAY-488] Packaging for Web Applications (also Azure Web Roles)
>> [NPANDAY-563] Generic MSDeploy synchronization mojo
>>
>> o support for iisApp packaging and deployment
>>
>> It seems to me that this could be better achieved by keeping create-package, and adding a parameter to determine what the source provider is, rather than subclassing the mojo (as the subclasses don't add any different configuration arguments). Given that application-maven-plugin and azure-maven-plugin both use create-package, the consistency might be good to keep too.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> - Brett
>>
>> --
>> Brett Porter
>> http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
>
create-package?
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
Hi Lars,
You might have missed this because of the original subject - any thoughts?
On 26/09/2012, at 3:01 PM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Lars,
>
> I'm looking into the test failures, and this commit broke the existing POMs that referred to 'create-package':
>
> On 4 May 2012 17:18, <lc...@apache.org> wrote:
> Author: lcorneliussen
> Date: Fri May 4 07:18:12 2012
> New Revision: 1333788
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1333788&view=rev
> Log:
> [NPANDAY-488] Packaging for Web Applications (also Azure Web Roles)
> [NPANDAY-563] Generic MSDeploy synchronization mojo
>
> o support for iisApp packaging and deployment
>
> It seems to me that this could be better achieved by keeping create-package, and adding a parameter to determine what the source provider is, rather than subclassing the mojo (as the subclasses don't add any different configuration arguments). Given that application-maven-plugin and azure-maven-plugin both use create-package, the consistency might be good to keep too.
>
> WDYT?
>
> - Brett
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> http://brettporter.wordpress.com/