You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@maven.apache.org by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> on 2014/12/11 06:38:09 UTC
MNG-1683: Zip packaging
Recently I needed to create zip artifacts for overlays into WAR. Maven
doesn't have support for "zip" packaging type projects, but MNG-1683 wants
to introduce it.
I am curious why this issue has been ignored. Is it just a lack of time or
interest? Or is there a philosophical issue behind the delay? I can't see
much difference between the zip lifecycle and jar lifecycle except there is
no default "compile" or "test" bindings.
Cheers,
Paul
Re: MNG-1683: Zip packaging
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
Yes, this definitely helps, Stephen. Thanks for your detailed and
well-written explanation. I appreciate it much.
Cheers,
Paul
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, December 17, 2014, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Stephen, I don't feel strongly about it but I don't think there is
> another
> > option. Unlike assembly:single which is used to create multiple
> > distributions, this is about creating an artifact destined to be consumed
> > as a dependency. Correct me if wrong, but Maven artifact types are meant
> to
> > produce one single/prime artifact, otherwise you have to begin specifying
> > "type" element on your dependencies.
>
>
> No you have it wrong there.
>
> Type defaults to `jar` if unspecified, so you will need to declare a type
> to consume either the zip or tar.gz
>
> The only case I know of where you get away from that is the horrible hack
> in jenkins plugins where you depend on the jar and the hpi plugin
> up-interprets the actual type from the resolved pom so that hpi
> "dependencies" are linked at runtime and non-hpi dependencies are packaged
> in WEB-INF/lib
>
> Most of the other packaging types produce jar files and use the packaging
> to determine the lifecycle
>
> Having said all that, the *default* descriptor should be just a zip... But
> if you override the default you can have a descriptor that produces .tar.gz
> and .tar.bz2 as well as .zip
>
> So I would say that the mojo should:
>
> * use its default descriptor if none in src/assembly
>
> * use the descriptor if one and only one in src/assembly
>
> * fail if more than one descriptor in src/assembly unless the user adds
> config to say which one to use
>
> HTH
>
>
>
Re: MNG-1683: Zip packaging
Posted by Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>.
On Wednesday, December 17, 2014, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
> Stephen, I don't feel strongly about it but I don't think there is another
> option. Unlike assembly:single which is used to create multiple
> distributions, this is about creating an artifact destined to be consumed
> as a dependency. Correct me if wrong, but Maven artifact types are meant to
> produce one single/prime artifact, otherwise you have to begin specifying
> "type" element on your dependencies.
No you have it wrong there.
Type defaults to `jar` if unspecified, so you will need to declare a type
to consume either the zip or tar.gz
The only case I know of where you get away from that is the horrible hack
in jenkins plugins where you depend on the jar and the hpi plugin
up-interprets the actual type from the resolved pom so that hpi
"dependencies" are linked at runtime and non-hpi dependencies are packaged
in WEB-INF/lib
Most of the other packaging types produce jar files and use the packaging
to determine the lifecycle
Having said all that, the *default* descriptor should be just a zip... But
if you override the default you can have a descriptor that produces .tar.gz
and .tar.bz2 as well as .zip
So I would say that the mojo should:
* use its default descriptor if none in src/assembly
* use the descriptor if one and only one in src/assembly
* fail if more than one descriptor in src/assembly unless the user adds
config to say which one to use
HTH
On Dec 17, 2014 1:26 AM, "Stephen Connolly" <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, December 17, 2014, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > With regards to the mythical "assembly" type, just like other artifact
> > > types, there is just only one primary artifact. Unlike running
> > > assembly:single, which can output multiple files (.zip, .gz, etc.), the
> > > output here will be just one artifact. Does anyone disagree with that
> > > perspective? If multiple files can still be generated, we'd still have
> to
> > > choose one as the primary, no
> >
> >
> > I would say that there is only one *descriptor*
> >
> > That descriptor could produce multiple formats, .zip and .tar.gz for
> > example
> >
> > But if you feel strongly otherwise...
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Manfred Moser <manfred@mosabuam.com
> <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;>>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I like this approach as well. Having to have an attached artifact to
> > have
> > > > a zip or tar.gz with a meaningless pom or jar always seemed a bit
> > weird.
> > > >
> > > > manfred
> > > >
> > > > Stephen Connolly wrote on 11.12.2014 07:14:
> > > >
> > > > > either mojo or a pull request against the assembly plugin (as you
> may
> > > > need
> > > > > to tweak the assembly:single default parameters)
> > > > >
> > > > > On 11 December 2014 at 14:54, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I am in agreement with Stephen. If I decide to try to prototype
> this
> > > > out,
> > > > >> where is a good place to lay down some code?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Cheers,
> > > > >> Paul
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Stephen Connolly <
> > > > >> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I think having an assembly type with a default binding of
> > > > assembly:single
> > > > >> > to the packaging phase and a default descriptor being the zip or
> > zip
> > > > and
> > > > >> > tar.gz descriptors would achieve what is required while
> > simplifying
> > > > >> > escalating to more complex descriptors
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Thursday, December 11, 2014, Timothy Astle <
> > > > timothy.astle@caris.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > I have a situation/problem/use-case where I would like to
> take a
> > > > >> > > collection of XML schemas and create a bundle of themso that
> > they
> > > > could
> > > > >> > be
> > > > >> > > included into other projects. The destination projects vary.
> > > Some
> > > > are
> > > > >> > > written in Java, some in C++, etc. So I'd like to produce
> amore
> > > > >> platform
> > > > >> > > agnostic bundling artifact. At the moment, we lean on
> Subversion
> > > > >> > externals,
> > > > >> > > which I really dislike doing.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > In this type of case, I figured a ZIP packaging type would
> have
> > > > >> described
> > > > >> > > the project and produced the expected output, while using
> Maven.
> > > A
> > > > big
> > > > >> > > thing that I like about Maven is how you model the project.
> > > Plugins
> > > > are
> > > > >> > > great, but opening up a POM and seeing the packaging type is
> > just
> > > so
> > > > >> nice
> > > > >> > > and explicit.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > There are several ways I can accomplish my goal, but
> somewhere,
> > > > >> deepdown,
> > > > >> > > Ihad hoped that I'd live long enough to see a first-class ZIP
> > > > packaging
> > > > >> > > type become available. :-)
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Tim
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On 11/12/2014 4:41 AM, domi wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> Hmm, not sure I agree - I think its just fact that users
> would
> > > > love to
> > > > >> > >> have simpler way to create ZIPs/TARs
> > > > >> > >> and the most logical/simple way (from a users point of view)
> to
> > > do
> > > > >> this
> > > > >> > >> is a packaging typ for these.
> > > > >> > >> Domi
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> On 11.12.2014, at 09:27, Stephen Connolly <
> > > > >> > >> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> Well the real question is what would you do with
> dependencies?
> > > > >> > >>>
> > > > >> > >>> So, for example, if you have a zip dependency, do you unpack
> > it
> > > > and
> > > > >> > >>> overlay
> > > > >> > >>> or do you copy it in? Or do you do nothing and leave it to
> the
> > > > >> > dependency
> > > > >> > >>> plugin?
> > > > >> > >>>
> > > > >> > >>> What about zip vs tar.gz dependency? If building a zip I
> might
> > > > expect
> > > > >> > >>> exploding the zip dependencies and copy tar.gz?
> > > > >> > >>>
> > > > >> > >>> A better approach might be an "assembly" packaging with a
> > > default
> > > > >> > >>> assembly descriptor directory and if empty it falls back to
> > zip
> > > > and
> > > > >> > >>> tar.gz
> > > > >> > >>> of target/classes with the resources plugin being in the
> > default
> > > > >> > >>> lifecycle
> > > > >> > >>> binding
> > > > >> > >>>
> > > > >> > >>> That would make using the assembly plugin less work and ack
> > the
> > > > fact
> > > > >> > >>> that a
> > > > >> > >>> zip or tar.gz needs the descriptor to control file
> permissions
> > > > >> > >>>
> > > > >> > >>> On Thursday, December 11, 2014, Anders Hammar <
> > > anders@hammar.net <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> > >>>
> > > > >> > >>> Yes, but I don't think making a specific plugin just for
> > adding
> > > > zip
> > > > >> > >>>> packaging is optimal. Hence the idea of having it in the
> > > assembly
> > > > >> > >>>> plugin.
> > > > >> > >>>> Thinking of it though, one very likely wants to create
> both a
> > > zip
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> > a
> > > > >> > >>>> tar
> > > > >> > >>>> file. So maybe the packaging type should be something else,
> > and
> > > > then
> > > > >> > it
> > > > >> > >>>> creates both types. But then I always advocate that one
> maven
> > > > >> project
> > > > >> > >>>> should only create one artifact...hmm.
> > > > >> > >>>>
> > > > >> > >>>> /Anders
> > > > >> > >>>>
> > > > >> > >>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Paul Benedict <
> > > > >> pbenedict@apache.org <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> > > > >> > >>>> <java script:;>> wrote:
> > > > >> > >>>>
> > > > >> > >>>> Anders, like make a maven-zip-plugin project?
> > > > >> > >>>>> On Dec 11, 2014 1:50 AM, "Anders Hammar" <
> anders@hammar.net <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;>
> > > > >> > >>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>> <java script:;>> wrote:
> > > > >> > >>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>> I don't think that the zip package type should be part of
> > > Maven
> > > > >> core,
> > > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>> but
> > > > >> > >>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>> we could provide some plugin which provides for it as a
> > custom
> > > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>> packaging
> > > > >> > >>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>> type. Possibly this could be part of the assembly plugin.
> > > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>> /Anders
> > > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Paul Benedict <
> > > > >> > pbenedict@apache.org <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>> <java script:;>>
> > > > >> > >>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>> Well my experience in building a zip *as a dependency*
> > feels
> > > > like
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>> it's
> > > > >> > >>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>> hackish. For example, I create a "pom" packaging type and
> > then
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>> configure
> > > > >> > >>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>> the assembly plugin for the "package" phase. Okay, but I
> > say
> > > > this
> > > > >> is
> > > > >> > >>>>>>> hackish because it's not straight forward, and the zip
> is
> > a
> > > > >> second
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>> artifact
> > > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>> (the pom is first) for installation. This pattern kind
> of
> > > > smells
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>> me
> > > > >> > >>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>> and
> > > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>> makes me think an official "zip" type really is needed.
> > > Having
> > > > >> > such a
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>> type
> > > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>> can take away all this boilerplate.
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > >> > >>>>>>> Paul
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Kristian Rosenvold <
> > > > >> > >>>>>>> kristian.rosenvold@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> <javascript:;> <java
> > > script:;>> wrote:
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> Probably because people just use the assembly plugin ?
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> Kristian
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> 2014-12-11 6:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict <
> > > > pbenedict@apache.org <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>> <java script:;>>:
> > > > >> > >>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>> Recently I needed to create zip artifacts for overlays
> into
> > > WAR.
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> Maven
> > > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>> doesn't have support for "zip" packaging type projects,
> > but
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> MNG-1683
> > > > >> > >>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>> wants
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>> to introduce it.
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>> I am curious why this issue has been ignored. Is it
> > just a
> > > > lack
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > >> > >>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>> time
> > > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>> or
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>> interest? Or is there a philosophical issue behind the
> > > > delay? I
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> can't
> > > > >> > >>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>> see
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> much difference between the zip lifecycle and jar
> > lifecycle
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> except
> > > > >> > >>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>> there
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>> is
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>> no default "compile" or "test" bindings.
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>> Paul
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >> > >>>> ---------
> > > > >> > >>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>> <java script:;>
> > > > >> > >>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@maven.apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>> <java script:;>
> > > > >> > >>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>
> > > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> > >>> --
> > > > >> > >>> Sent from my phone
> > > > >> > >>>
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > --
> > > > >> > Sent from my phone
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> > <javascript:;>
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from my phone
> >
>
--
Sent from my phone
Re: MNG-1683: Zip packaging
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
Stephen, I don't feel strongly about it but I don't think there is another
option. Unlike assembly:single which is used to create multiple
distributions, this is about creating an artifact destined to be consumed
as a dependency. Correct me if wrong, but Maven artifact types are meant to
produce one single/prime artifact, otherwise you have to begin specifying
"type" element on your dependencies.
On Dec 17, 2014 1:26 AM, "Stephen Connolly" <st...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 17, 2014, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > With regards to the mythical "assembly" type, just like other artifact
> > types, there is just only one primary artifact. Unlike running
> > assembly:single, which can output multiple files (.zip, .gz, etc.), the
> > output here will be just one artifact. Does anyone disagree with that
> > perspective? If multiple files can still be generated, we'd still have to
> > choose one as the primary, no
>
>
> I would say that there is only one *descriptor*
>
> That descriptor could produce multiple formats, .zip and .tar.gz for
> example
>
> But if you feel strongly otherwise...
>
>
> >
>
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Paul
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Manfred Moser <manfred@mosabuam.com
> > <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I like this approach as well. Having to have an attached artifact to
> have
> > > a zip or tar.gz with a meaningless pom or jar always seemed a bit
> weird.
> > >
> > > manfred
> > >
> > > Stephen Connolly wrote on 11.12.2014 07:14:
> > >
> > > > either mojo or a pull request against the assembly plugin (as you may
> > > need
> > > > to tweak the assembly:single default parameters)
> > > >
> > > > On 11 December 2014 at 14:54, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org
> > <javascript:;>>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I am in agreement with Stephen. If I decide to try to prototype this
> > > out,
> > > >> where is a good place to lay down some code?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Cheers,
> > > >> Paul
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Stephen Connolly <
> > > >> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I think having an assembly type with a default binding of
> > > assembly:single
> > > >> > to the packaging phase and a default descriptor being the zip or
> zip
> > > and
> > > >> > tar.gz descriptors would achieve what is required while
> simplifying
> > > >> > escalating to more complex descriptors
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Thursday, December 11, 2014, Timothy Astle <
> > > timothy.astle@caris.com <javascript:;>>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > I have a situation/problem/use-case where I would like to take a
> > > >> > > collection of XML schemas and create a bundle of themso that
> they
> > > could
> > > >> > be
> > > >> > > included into other projects. The destination projects vary.
> > Some
> > > are
> > > >> > > written in Java, some in C++, etc. So I'd like to produce amore
> > > >> platform
> > > >> > > agnostic bundling artifact. At the moment, we lean on Subversion
> > > >> > externals,
> > > >> > > which I really dislike doing.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > In this type of case, I figured a ZIP packaging type would have
> > > >> described
> > > >> > > the project and produced the expected output, while using Maven.
> > A
> > > big
> > > >> > > thing that I like about Maven is how you model the project.
> > Plugins
> > > are
> > > >> > > great, but opening up a POM and seeing the packaging type is
> just
> > so
> > > >> nice
> > > >> > > and explicit.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > There are several ways I can accomplish my goal, but somewhere,
> > > >> deepdown,
> > > >> > > Ihad hoped that I'd live long enough to see a first-class ZIP
> > > packaging
> > > >> > > type become available. :-)
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Tim
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On 11/12/2014 4:41 AM, domi wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >> Hmm, not sure I agree - I think its just fact that users would
> > > love to
> > > >> > >> have simpler way to create ZIPs/TARs
> > > >> > >> and the most logical/simple way (from a users point of view) to
> > do
> > > >> this
> > > >> > >> is a packaging typ for these.
> > > >> > >> Domi
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> On 11.12.2014, at 09:27, Stephen Connolly <
> > > >> > >> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Well the real question is what would you do with dependencies?
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> So, for example, if you have a zip dependency, do you unpack
> it
> > > and
> > > >> > >>> overlay
> > > >> > >>> or do you copy it in? Or do you do nothing and leave it to the
> > > >> > dependency
> > > >> > >>> plugin?
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> What about zip vs tar.gz dependency? If building a zip I might
> > > expect
> > > >> > >>> exploding the zip dependencies and copy tar.gz?
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> A better approach might be an "assembly" packaging with a
> > default
> > > >> > >>> assembly descriptor directory and if empty it falls back to
> zip
> > > and
> > > >> > >>> tar.gz
> > > >> > >>> of target/classes with the resources plugin being in the
> default
> > > >> > >>> lifecycle
> > > >> > >>> binding
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> That would make using the assembly plugin less work and ack
> the
> > > fact
> > > >> > >>> that a
> > > >> > >>> zip or tar.gz needs the descriptor to control file permissions
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> On Thursday, December 11, 2014, Anders Hammar <
> > anders@hammar.net <javascript:;>>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> Yes, but I don't think making a specific plugin just for
> adding
> > > zip
> > > >> > >>>> packaging is optimal. Hence the idea of having it in the
> > assembly
> > > >> > >>>> plugin.
> > > >> > >>>> Thinking of it though, one very likely wants to create both a
> > zip
> > > >> and
> > > >> > a
> > > >> > >>>> tar
> > > >> > >>>> file. So maybe the packaging type should be something else,
> and
> > > then
> > > >> > it
> > > >> > >>>> creates both types. But then I always advocate that one maven
> > > >> project
> > > >> > >>>> should only create one artifact...hmm.
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>> /Anders
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Paul Benedict <
> > > >> pbenedict@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > >> > >>>> <java script:;>> wrote:
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>> Anders, like make a maven-zip-plugin project?
> > > >> > >>>>> On Dec 11, 2014 1:50 AM, "Anders Hammar" <anders@hammar.net
> > <javascript:;>
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>> <java script:;>> wrote:
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> I don't think that the zip package type should be part of
> > Maven
> > > >> core,
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> but
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> we could provide some plugin which provides for it as a
> custom
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> packaging
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> type. Possibly this could be part of the assembly plugin.
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>> /Anders
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Paul Benedict <
> > > >> > pbenedict@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> <java script:;>>
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>> Well my experience in building a zip *as a dependency*
> feels
> > > like
> > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>> it's
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> hackish. For example, I create a "pom" packaging type and
> then
> > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>> configure
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>> the assembly plugin for the "package" phase. Okay, but I
> say
> > > this
> > > >> is
> > > >> > >>>>>>> hackish because it's not straight forward, and the zip is
> a
> > > >> second
> > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>> artifact
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>> (the pom is first) for installation. This pattern kind of
> > > smells
> > > >> to
> > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>> me
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> and
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>> makes me think an official "zip" type really is needed.
> > Having
> > > >> > such a
> > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>> type
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>> can take away all this boilerplate.
> > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > >> > >>>>>>> Paul
> > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Kristian Rosenvold <
> > > >> > >>>>>>> kristian.rosenvold@gmail.com <javascript:;> <java
> > script:;>> wrote:
> > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> Probably because people just use the assembly plugin ?
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> Kristian
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> 2014-12-11 6:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict <
> > > pbenedict@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>> <java script:;>>:
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> Recently I needed to create zip artifacts for overlays into
> > WAR.
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> Maven
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>> doesn't have support for "zip" packaging type projects,
> but
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> MNG-1683
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>> wants
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> to introduce it.
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> I am curious why this issue has been ignored. Is it
> just a
> > > lack
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> of
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> time
> > > >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>> or
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> interest? Or is there a philosophical issue behind the
> > > delay? I
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> can't
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>> see
> > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> much difference between the zip lifecycle and jar
> lifecycle
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> except
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> there
> > > >> > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>> is
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> no default "compile" or "test" bindings.
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>> Paul
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > >>>> ---------
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > <javascript:;>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>> <java script:;>
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> > <javascript:;>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>> <java script:;>
> > > >> > >>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>
> > > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > >>> --
> > > >> > >>> Sent from my phone
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --
> > > >> > Sent from my phone
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> > <javascript:;>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Sent from my phone
>
Re: MNG-1683: Zip packaging
Posted by Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>.
On Wednesday, December 17, 2014, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
> With regards to the mythical "assembly" type, just like other artifact
> types, there is just only one primary artifact. Unlike running
> assembly:single, which can output multiple files (.zip, .gz, etc.), the
> output here will be just one artifact. Does anyone disagree with that
> perspective? If multiple files can still be generated, we'd still have to
> choose one as the primary, no
I would say that there is only one *descriptor*
That descriptor could produce multiple formats, .zip and .tar.gz for example
But if you feel strongly otherwise...
>
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Manfred Moser <manfred@mosabuam.com
> <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >
> > I like this approach as well. Having to have an attached artifact to have
> > a zip or tar.gz with a meaningless pom or jar always seemed a bit weird.
> >
> > manfred
> >
> > Stephen Connolly wrote on 11.12.2014 07:14:
> >
> > > either mojo or a pull request against the assembly plugin (as you may
> > need
> > > to tweak the assembly:single default parameters)
> > >
> > > On 11 December 2014 at 14:54, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I am in agreement with Stephen. If I decide to try to prototype this
> > out,
> > >> where is a good place to lay down some code?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Paul
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Stephen Connolly <
> > >> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > I think having an assembly type with a default binding of
> > assembly:single
> > >> > to the packaging phase and a default descriptor being the zip or zip
> > and
> > >> > tar.gz descriptors would achieve what is required while simplifying
> > >> > escalating to more complex descriptors
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thursday, December 11, 2014, Timothy Astle <
> > timothy.astle@caris.com <javascript:;>>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > I have a situation/problem/use-case where I would like to take a
> > >> > > collection of XML schemas and create a bundle of themso that they
> > could
> > >> > be
> > >> > > included into other projects. The destination projects vary.
> Some
> > are
> > >> > > written in Java, some in C++, etc. So I'd like to produce amore
> > >> platform
> > >> > > agnostic bundling artifact. At the moment, we lean on Subversion
> > >> > externals,
> > >> > > which I really dislike doing.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > In this type of case, I figured a ZIP packaging type would have
> > >> described
> > >> > > the project and produced the expected output, while using Maven.
> A
> > big
> > >> > > thing that I like about Maven is how you model the project.
> Plugins
> > are
> > >> > > great, but opening up a POM and seeing the packaging type is just
> so
> > >> nice
> > >> > > and explicit.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > There are several ways I can accomplish my goal, but somewhere,
> > >> deepdown,
> > >> > > Ihad hoped that I'd live long enough to see a first-class ZIP
> > packaging
> > >> > > type become available. :-)
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Tim
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On 11/12/2014 4:41 AM, domi wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> Hmm, not sure I agree - I think its just fact that users would
> > love to
> > >> > >> have simpler way to create ZIPs/TARs
> > >> > >> and the most logical/simple way (from a users point of view) to
> do
> > >> this
> > >> > >> is a packaging typ for these.
> > >> > >> Domi
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> On 11.12.2014, at 09:27, Stephen Connolly <
> > >> > >> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Well the real question is what would you do with dependencies?
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> So, for example, if you have a zip dependency, do you unpack it
> > and
> > >> > >>> overlay
> > >> > >>> or do you copy it in? Or do you do nothing and leave it to the
> > >> > dependency
> > >> > >>> plugin?
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> What about zip vs tar.gz dependency? If building a zip I might
> > expect
> > >> > >>> exploding the zip dependencies and copy tar.gz?
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> A better approach might be an "assembly" packaging with a
> default
> > >> > >>> assembly descriptor directory and if empty it falls back to zip
> > and
> > >> > >>> tar.gz
> > >> > >>> of target/classes with the resources plugin being in the default
> > >> > >>> lifecycle
> > >> > >>> binding
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> That would make using the assembly plugin less work and ack the
> > fact
> > >> > >>> that a
> > >> > >>> zip or tar.gz needs the descriptor to control file permissions
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> On Thursday, December 11, 2014, Anders Hammar <
> anders@hammar.net <javascript:;>>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> Yes, but I don't think making a specific plugin just for adding
> > zip
> > >> > >>>> packaging is optimal. Hence the idea of having it in the
> assembly
> > >> > >>>> plugin.
> > >> > >>>> Thinking of it though, one very likely wants to create both a
> zip
> > >> and
> > >> > a
> > >> > >>>> tar
> > >> > >>>> file. So maybe the packaging type should be something else, and
> > then
> > >> > it
> > >> > >>>> creates both types. But then I always advocate that one maven
> > >> project
> > >> > >>>> should only create one artifact...hmm.
> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >>>> /Anders
> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Paul Benedict <
> > >> pbenedict@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > >> > >>>> <java script:;>> wrote:
> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >>>> Anders, like make a maven-zip-plugin project?
> > >> > >>>>> On Dec 11, 2014 1:50 AM, "Anders Hammar" <anders@hammar.net
> <javascript:;>
> > >> > >>>>>
> > >> > >>>> <java script:;>> wrote:
> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >>>>> I don't think that the zip package type should be part of
> Maven
> > >> core,
> > >> > >>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>> but
> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >>>>> we could provide some plugin which provides for it as a custom
> > >> > >>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>> packaging
> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >>>>> type. Possibly this could be part of the assembly plugin.
> > >> > >>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>> /Anders
> > >> > >>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Paul Benedict <
> > >> > pbenedict@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > >> > >>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>> <java script:;>>
> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >> > >>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>> Well my experience in building a zip *as a dependency* feels
> > like
> > >> > >>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>> it's
> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >>>>> hackish. For example, I create a "pom" packaging type and then
> > >> > >>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>> configure
> > >> > >>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>> the assembly plugin for the "package" phase. Okay, but I say
> > this
> > >> is
> > >> > >>>>>>> hackish because it's not straight forward, and the zip is a
> > >> second
> > >> > >>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>> artifact
> > >> > >>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>> (the pom is first) for installation. This pattern kind of
> > smells
> > >> to
> > >> > >>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>> me
> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >>>>> and
> > >> > >>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>> makes me think an official "zip" type really is needed.
> Having
> > >> > such a
> > >> > >>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>> type
> > >> > >>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>> can take away all this boilerplate.
> > >> > >>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>> Cheers,
> > >> > >>>>>>> Paul
> > >> > >>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Kristian Rosenvold <
> > >> > >>>>>>> kristian.rosenvold@gmail.com <javascript:;> <java
> script:;>> wrote:
> > >> > >>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>> Probably because people just use the assembly plugin ?
> > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>> Kristian
> > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>> 2014-12-11 6:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict <
> > pbenedict@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>> <java script:;>>:
> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >>>>> Recently I needed to create zip artifacts for overlays into
> WAR.
> > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>> Maven
> > >> > >>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>> doesn't have support for "zip" packaging type projects, but
> > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>> MNG-1683
> > >> > >>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>> wants
> > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>>> to introduce it.
> > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>>> I am curious why this issue has been ignored. Is it just a
> > lack
> > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>> of
> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >>>>> time
> > >> > >>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>> or
> > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>>> interest? Or is there a philosophical issue behind the
> > delay? I
> > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>> can't
> > >> > >>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>> see
> > >> > >>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>> much difference between the zip lifecycle and jar lifecycle
> > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>> except
> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >>>>> there
> > >> > >>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>> is
> > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>>> no default "compile" or "test" bindings.
> > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > >> > >>>>>>>>> Paul
> > >> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > >>>> ---------
> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>> <java script:;>
> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>> <java script:;>
> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >>>>>
> > >> > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > >>> --
> > >> > >>> Sent from my phone
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Sent from my phone
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org <javascript:;>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> >
> >
>
--
Sent from my phone
Re: MNG-1683: Zip packaging
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
With regards to the mythical "assembly" type, just like other artifact
types, there is just only one primary artifact. Unlike running
assembly:single, which can output multiple files (.zip, .gz, etc.), the
output here will be just one artifact. Does anyone disagree with that
perspective? If multiple files can still be generated, we'd still have to
choose one as the primary, no?
Cheers,
Paul
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Manfred Moser <ma...@mosabuam.com>
wrote:
>
> I like this approach as well. Having to have an attached artifact to have
> a zip or tar.gz with a meaningless pom or jar always seemed a bit weird.
>
> manfred
>
> Stephen Connolly wrote on 11.12.2014 07:14:
>
> > either mojo or a pull request against the assembly plugin (as you may
> need
> > to tweak the assembly:single default parameters)
> >
> > On 11 December 2014 at 14:54, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I am in agreement with Stephen. If I decide to try to prototype this
> out,
> >> where is a good place to lay down some code?
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Stephen Connolly <
> >> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I think having an assembly type with a default binding of
> assembly:single
> >> > to the packaging phase and a default descriptor being the zip or zip
> and
> >> > tar.gz descriptors would achieve what is required while simplifying
> >> > escalating to more complex descriptors
> >> >
> >> > On Thursday, December 11, 2014, Timothy Astle <
> timothy.astle@caris.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I have a situation/problem/use-case where I would like to take a
> >> > > collection of XML schemas and create a bundle of themso that they
> could
> >> > be
> >> > > included into other projects. The destination projects vary. Some
> are
> >> > > written in Java, some in C++, etc. So I'd like to produce amore
> >> platform
> >> > > agnostic bundling artifact. At the moment, we lean on Subversion
> >> > externals,
> >> > > which I really dislike doing.
> >> > >
> >> > > In this type of case, I figured a ZIP packaging type would have
> >> described
> >> > > the project and produced the expected output, while using Maven. A
> big
> >> > > thing that I like about Maven is how you model the project. Plugins
> are
> >> > > great, but opening up a POM and seeing the packaging type is just so
> >> nice
> >> > > and explicit.
> >> > >
> >> > > There are several ways I can accomplish my goal, but somewhere,
> >> deepdown,
> >> > > Ihad hoped that I'd live long enough to see a first-class ZIP
> packaging
> >> > > type become available. :-)
> >> > >
> >> > > Tim
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On 11/12/2014 4:41 AM, domi wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Hmm, not sure I agree - I think its just fact that users would
> love to
> >> > >> have simpler way to create ZIPs/TARs
> >> > >> and the most logical/simple way (from a users point of view) to do
> >> this
> >> > >> is a packaging typ for these.
> >> > >> Domi
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On 11.12.2014, at 09:27, Stephen Connolly <
> >> > >> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Well the real question is what would you do with dependencies?
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> So, for example, if you have a zip dependency, do you unpack it
> and
> >> > >>> overlay
> >> > >>> or do you copy it in? Or do you do nothing and leave it to the
> >> > dependency
> >> > >>> plugin?
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> What about zip vs tar.gz dependency? If building a zip I might
> expect
> >> > >>> exploding the zip dependencies and copy tar.gz?
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> A better approach might be an "assembly" packaging with a default
> >> > >>> assembly descriptor directory and if empty it falls back to zip
> and
> >> > >>> tar.gz
> >> > >>> of target/classes with the resources plugin being in the default
> >> > >>> lifecycle
> >> > >>> binding
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> That would make using the assembly plugin less work and ack the
> fact
> >> > >>> that a
> >> > >>> zip or tar.gz needs the descriptor to control file permissions
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> On Thursday, December 11, 2014, Anders Hammar <an...@hammar.net>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Yes, but I don't think making a specific plugin just for adding
> zip
> >> > >>>> packaging is optimal. Hence the idea of having it in the assembly
> >> > >>>> plugin.
> >> > >>>> Thinking of it though, one very likely wants to create both a zip
> >> and
> >> > a
> >> > >>>> tar
> >> > >>>> file. So maybe the packaging type should be something else, and
> then
> >> > it
> >> > >>>> creates both types. But then I always advocate that one maven
> >> project
> >> > >>>> should only create one artifact...hmm.
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> /Anders
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Paul Benedict <
> >> pbenedict@apache.org
> >> > >>>> <java script:;>> wrote:
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> Anders, like make a maven-zip-plugin project?
> >> > >>>>> On Dec 11, 2014 1:50 AM, "Anders Hammar" <anders@hammar.net
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>> <java script:;>> wrote:
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>>> I don't think that the zip package type should be part of Maven
> >> core,
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>> but
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>>> we could provide some plugin which provides for it as a custom
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>> packaging
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>>> type. Possibly this could be part of the assembly plugin.
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>> /Anders
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Paul Benedict <
> >> > pbenedict@apache.org
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>> <java script:;>>
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>>> wrote:
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>> Well my experience in building a zip *as a dependency* feels
> like
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>> it's
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>>> hackish. For example, I create a "pom" packaging type and then
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>> configure
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>>> the assembly plugin for the "package" phase. Okay, but I say
> this
> >> is
> >> > >>>>>>> hackish because it's not straight forward, and the zip is a
> >> second
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>> artifact
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>> (the pom is first) for installation. This pattern kind of
> smells
> >> to
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>> me
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>>> and
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>> makes me think an official "zip" type really is needed. Having
> >> > such a
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>> type
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>> can take away all this boilerplate.
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>> Cheers,
> >> > >>>>>>> Paul
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Kristian Rosenvold <
> >> > >>>>>>> kristian.rosenvold@gmail.com <java script:;>> wrote:
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>> Probably because people just use the assembly plugin ?
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>> Kristian
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>> 2014-12-11 6:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict <
> pbenedict@apache.org
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>> <java script:;>>:
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>>> Recently I needed to create zip artifacts for overlays into WAR.
> >> > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>> Maven
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>> doesn't have support for "zip" packaging type projects, but
> >> > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>> MNG-1683
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>>> wants
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>>> to introduce it.
> >> > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>>> I am curious why this issue has been ignored. Is it just a
> lack
> >> > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>> of
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>>> time
> >> > >>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>> or
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>>> interest? Or is there a philosophical issue behind the
> delay? I
> >> > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>> can't
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>>> see
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>> much difference between the zip lifecycle and jar lifecycle
> >> > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>> except
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>>> there
> >> > >>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>> is
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>>> no default "compile" or "test" bindings.
> >> > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >> > >>>>>>>>> Paul
> >> > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > >>>> ---------
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>> <java script:;>
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>> <java script:;>
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>>>>>
> >> > >>> --
> >> > >>> Sent from my phone
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Sent from my phone
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
Re: MNG-1683: Zip packaging
Posted by Manfred Moser <ma...@mosabuam.com>.
I like this approach as well. Having to have an attached artifact to have a zip or tar.gz with a meaningless pom or jar always seemed a bit weird.
manfred
Stephen Connolly wrote on 11.12.2014 07:14:
> either mojo or a pull request against the assembly plugin (as you may need
> to tweak the assembly:single default parameters)
>
> On 11 December 2014 at 14:54, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I am in agreement with Stephen. If I decide to try to prototype this out,
>> where is a good place to lay down some code?
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Paul
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Stephen Connolly <
>> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I think having an assembly type with a default binding of assembly:single
>> > to the packaging phase and a default descriptor being the zip or zip and
>> > tar.gz descriptors would achieve what is required while simplifying
>> > escalating to more complex descriptors
>> >
>> > On Thursday, December 11, 2014, Timothy Astle <ti...@caris.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > I have a situation/problem/use-case where I would like to take a
>> > > collection of XML schemas and create a bundle of themso that they could
>> > be
>> > > included into other projects. The destination projects vary. Some are
>> > > written in Java, some in C++, etc. So I'd like to produce amore
>> platform
>> > > agnostic bundling artifact. At the moment, we lean on Subversion
>> > externals,
>> > > which I really dislike doing.
>> > >
>> > > In this type of case, I figured a ZIP packaging type would have
>> described
>> > > the project and produced the expected output, while using Maven. A big
>> > > thing that I like about Maven is how you model the project. Plugins are
>> > > great, but opening up a POM and seeing the packaging type is just so
>> nice
>> > > and explicit.
>> > >
>> > > There are several ways I can accomplish my goal, but somewhere,
>> deepdown,
>> > > Ihad hoped that I'd live long enough to see a first-class ZIP packaging
>> > > type become available. :-)
>> > >
>> > > Tim
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 11/12/2014 4:41 AM, domi wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Hmm, not sure I agree - I think its just fact that users would love to
>> > >> have simpler way to create ZIPs/TARs
>> > >> and the most logical/simple way (from a users point of view) to do
>> this
>> > >> is a packaging typ for these.
>> > >> Domi
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On 11.12.2014, at 09:27, Stephen Connolly <
>> > >> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Well the real question is what would you do with dependencies?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> So, for example, if you have a zip dependency, do you unpack it and
>> > >>> overlay
>> > >>> or do you copy it in? Or do you do nothing and leave it to the
>> > dependency
>> > >>> plugin?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> What about zip vs tar.gz dependency? If building a zip I might expect
>> > >>> exploding the zip dependencies and copy tar.gz?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> A better approach might be an "assembly" packaging with a default
>> > >>> assembly descriptor directory and if empty it falls back to zip and
>> > >>> tar.gz
>> > >>> of target/classes with the resources plugin being in the default
>> > >>> lifecycle
>> > >>> binding
>> > >>>
>> > >>> That would make using the assembly plugin less work and ack the fact
>> > >>> that a
>> > >>> zip or tar.gz needs the descriptor to control file permissions
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Thursday, December 11, 2014, Anders Hammar <an...@hammar.net>
>> > wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Yes, but I don't think making a specific plugin just for adding zip
>> > >>>> packaging is optimal. Hence the idea of having it in the assembly
>> > >>>> plugin.
>> > >>>> Thinking of it though, one very likely wants to create both a zip
>> and
>> > a
>> > >>>> tar
>> > >>>> file. So maybe the packaging type should be something else, and then
>> > it
>> > >>>> creates both types. But then I always advocate that one maven
>> project
>> > >>>> should only create one artifact...hmm.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> /Anders
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Paul Benedict <
>> pbenedict@apache.org
>> > >>>> <java script:;>> wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Anders, like make a maven-zip-plugin project?
>> > >>>>> On Dec 11, 2014 1:50 AM, "Anders Hammar" <anders@hammar.net
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>> <java script:;>> wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> I don't think that the zip package type should be part of Maven
>> core,
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>> but
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> we could provide some plugin which provides for it as a custom
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>> packaging
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> type. Possibly this could be part of the assembly plugin.
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> /Anders
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Paul Benedict <
>> > pbenedict@apache.org
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>> <java script:;>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> Well my experience in building a zip *as a dependency* feels like
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> it's
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> hackish. For example, I create a "pom" packaging type and then
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> configure
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>> the assembly plugin for the "package" phase. Okay, but I say this
>> is
>> > >>>>>>> hackish because it's not straight forward, and the zip is a
>> second
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> artifact
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> (the pom is first) for installation. This pattern kind of smells
>> to
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> me
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> and
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> makes me think an official "zip" type really is needed. Having
>> > such a
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>> type
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> can take away all this boilerplate.
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> Cheers,
>> > >>>>>>> Paul
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Kristian Rosenvold <
>> > >>>>>>> kristian.rosenvold@gmail.com <java script:;>> wrote:
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> Probably because people just use the assembly plugin ?
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> Kristian
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> 2014-12-11 6:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> <java script:;>>:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> Recently I needed to create zip artifacts for overlays into WAR.
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> Maven
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> doesn't have support for "zip" packaging type projects, but
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> MNG-1683
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>> wants
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>> to introduce it.
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>> I am curious why this issue has been ignored. Is it just a lack
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> of
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> time
>> > >>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> or
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>> interest? Or is there a philosophical issue behind the delay? I
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> can't
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>> see
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> much difference between the zip lifecycle and jar lifecycle
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> except
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> there
>> > >>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> is
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>> no default "compile" or "test" bindings.
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>> > >>>>>>>>> Paul
>> > >>>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >>>> ---------
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> <java script:;>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>>>>>> <java script:;>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>>>>>
>> > >>> --
>> > >>> Sent from my phone
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Sent from my phone
>> >
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: MNG-1683: Zip packaging
Posted by Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>.
either mojo or a pull request against the assembly plugin (as you may need
to tweak the assembly:single default parameters)
On 11 December 2014 at 14:54, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
> I am in agreement with Stephen. If I decide to try to prototype this out,
> where is a good place to lay down some code?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think having an assembly type with a default binding of assembly:single
> > to the packaging phase and a default descriptor being the zip or zip and
> > tar.gz descriptors would achieve what is required while simplifying
> > escalating to more complex descriptors
> >
> > On Thursday, December 11, 2014, Timothy Astle <ti...@caris.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I have a situation/problem/use-case where I would like to take a
> > > collection of XML schemas and create a bundle of themso that they could
> > be
> > > included into other projects. The destination projects vary. Some are
> > > written in Java, some in C++, etc. So I'd like to produce amore
> platform
> > > agnostic bundling artifact. At the moment, we lean on Subversion
> > externals,
> > > which I really dislike doing.
> > >
> > > In this type of case, I figured a ZIP packaging type would have
> described
> > > the project and produced the expected output, while using Maven. A big
> > > thing that I like about Maven is how you model the project. Plugins are
> > > great, but opening up a POM and seeing the packaging type is just so
> nice
> > > and explicit.
> > >
> > > There are several ways I can accomplish my goal, but somewhere,
> deepdown,
> > > Ihad hoped that I'd live long enough to see a first-class ZIP packaging
> > > type become available. :-)
> > >
> > > Tim
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/12/2014 4:41 AM, domi wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hmm, not sure I agree - I think its just fact that users would love to
> > >> have simpler way to create ZIPs/TARs
> > >> and the most logical/simple way (from a users point of view) to do
> this
> > >> is a packaging typ for these.
> > >> Domi
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 11.12.2014, at 09:27, Stephen Connolly <
> > >> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Well the real question is what would you do with dependencies?
> > >>>
> > >>> So, for example, if you have a zip dependency, do you unpack it and
> > >>> overlay
> > >>> or do you copy it in? Or do you do nothing and leave it to the
> > dependency
> > >>> plugin?
> > >>>
> > >>> What about zip vs tar.gz dependency? If building a zip I might expect
> > >>> exploding the zip dependencies and copy tar.gz?
> > >>>
> > >>> A better approach might be an "assembly" packaging with a default
> > >>> assembly descriptor directory and if empty it falls back to zip and
> > >>> tar.gz
> > >>> of target/classes with the resources plugin being in the default
> > >>> lifecycle
> > >>> binding
> > >>>
> > >>> That would make using the assembly plugin less work and ack the fact
> > >>> that a
> > >>> zip or tar.gz needs the descriptor to control file permissions
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thursday, December 11, 2014, Anders Hammar <an...@hammar.net>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes, but I don't think making a specific plugin just for adding zip
> > >>>> packaging is optimal. Hence the idea of having it in the assembly
> > >>>> plugin.
> > >>>> Thinking of it though, one very likely wants to create both a zip
> and
> > a
> > >>>> tar
> > >>>> file. So maybe the packaging type should be something else, and then
> > it
> > >>>> creates both types. But then I always advocate that one maven
> project
> > >>>> should only create one artifact...hmm.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> /Anders
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Paul Benedict <
> pbenedict@apache.org
> > >>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Anders, like make a maven-zip-plugin project?
> > >>>>> On Dec 11, 2014 1:50 AM, "Anders Hammar" <anders@hammar.net
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I don't think that the zip package type should be part of Maven
> core,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> but
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> we could provide some plugin which provides for it as a custom
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> packaging
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> type. Possibly this could be part of the assembly plugin.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> /Anders
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Paul Benedict <
> > pbenedict@apache.org
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> <javascript:;>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Well my experience in building a zip *as a dependency* feels like
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> it's
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> hackish. For example, I create a "pom" packaging type and then
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> configure
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> the assembly plugin for the "package" phase. Okay, but I say this
> is
> > >>>>>>> hackish because it's not straight forward, and the zip is a
> second
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> artifact
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> (the pom is first) for installation. This pattern kind of smells
> to
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> me
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> and
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> makes me think an official "zip" type really is needed. Having
> > such a
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> type
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> can take away all this boilerplate.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>>> Paul
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Kristian Rosenvold <
> > >>>>>>> kristian.rosenvold@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Probably because people just use the assembly plugin ?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Kristian
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> 2014-12-11 6:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> <javascript:;>>:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Recently I needed to create zip artifacts for overlays into WAR.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Maven
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> doesn't have support for "zip" packaging type projects, but
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> MNG-1683
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> wants
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> to introduce it.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I am curious why this issue has been ignored. Is it just a lack
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> time
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> or
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> interest? Or is there a philosophical issue behind the delay? I
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> can't
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> see
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> much difference between the zip lifecycle and jar lifecycle
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> except
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> there
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> no default "compile" or "test" bindings.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>>>>> Paul
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>> ---------
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> <javascript:;>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> <javascript:;>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Sent from my phone
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from my phone
> >
>
Re: MNG-1683: Zip packaging
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
I am in agreement with Stephen. If I decide to try to prototype this out,
where is a good place to lay down some code?
Cheers,
Paul
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think having an assembly type with a default binding of assembly:single
> to the packaging phase and a default descriptor being the zip or zip and
> tar.gz descriptors would achieve what is required while simplifying
> escalating to more complex descriptors
>
> On Thursday, December 11, 2014, Timothy Astle <ti...@caris.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I have a situation/problem/use-case where I would like to take a
> > collection of XML schemas and create a bundle of themso that they could
> be
> > included into other projects. The destination projects vary. Some are
> > written in Java, some in C++, etc. So I'd like to produce amore platform
> > agnostic bundling artifact. At the moment, we lean on Subversion
> externals,
> > which I really dislike doing.
> >
> > In this type of case, I figured a ZIP packaging type would have described
> > the project and produced the expected output, while using Maven. A big
> > thing that I like about Maven is how you model the project. Plugins are
> > great, but opening up a POM and seeing the packaging type is just so nice
> > and explicit.
> >
> > There are several ways I can accomplish my goal, but somewhere, deepdown,
> > Ihad hoped that I'd live long enough to see a first-class ZIP packaging
> > type become available. :-)
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> > On 11/12/2014 4:41 AM, domi wrote:
> >
> >> Hmm, not sure I agree - I think its just fact that users would love to
> >> have simpler way to create ZIPs/TARs
> >> and the most logical/simple way (from a users point of view) to do this
> >> is a packaging typ for these.
> >> Domi
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11.12.2014, at 09:27, Stephen Connolly <
> >> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Well the real question is what would you do with dependencies?
> >>>
> >>> So, for example, if you have a zip dependency, do you unpack it and
> >>> overlay
> >>> or do you copy it in? Or do you do nothing and leave it to the
> dependency
> >>> plugin?
> >>>
> >>> What about zip vs tar.gz dependency? If building a zip I might expect
> >>> exploding the zip dependencies and copy tar.gz?
> >>>
> >>> A better approach might be an "assembly" packaging with a default
> >>> assembly descriptor directory and if empty it falls back to zip and
> >>> tar.gz
> >>> of target/classes with the resources plugin being in the default
> >>> lifecycle
> >>> binding
> >>>
> >>> That would make using the assembly plugin less work and ack the fact
> >>> that a
> >>> zip or tar.gz needs the descriptor to control file permissions
> >>>
> >>> On Thursday, December 11, 2014, Anders Hammar <an...@hammar.net>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Yes, but I don't think making a specific plugin just for adding zip
> >>>> packaging is optimal. Hence the idea of having it in the assembly
> >>>> plugin.
> >>>> Thinking of it though, one very likely wants to create both a zip and
> a
> >>>> tar
> >>>> file. So maybe the packaging type should be something else, and then
> it
> >>>> creates both types. But then I always advocate that one maven project
> >>>> should only create one artifact...hmm.
> >>>>
> >>>> /Anders
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org
> >>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Anders, like make a maven-zip-plugin project?
> >>>>> On Dec 11, 2014 1:50 AM, "Anders Hammar" <anders@hammar.net
> >>>>>
> >>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I don't think that the zip package type should be part of Maven core,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> but
> >>>>
> >>>>> we could provide some plugin which provides for it as a custom
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> packaging
> >>>>
> >>>>> type. Possibly this could be part of the assembly plugin.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> /Anders
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Paul Benedict <
> pbenedict@apache.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> <javascript:;>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Well my experience in building a zip *as a dependency* feels like
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> it's
> >>>>
> >>>>> hackish. For example, I create a "pom" packaging type and then
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> configure
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> the assembly plugin for the "package" phase. Okay, but I say this is
> >>>>>>> hackish because it's not straight forward, and the zip is a second
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> artifact
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> (the pom is first) for installation. This pattern kind of smells to
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> me
> >>>>
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> makes me think an official "zip" type really is needed. Having
> such a
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> type
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> can take away all this boilerplate.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>> Paul
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Kristian Rosenvold <
> >>>>>>> kristian.rosenvold@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Probably because people just use the assembly plugin ?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Kristian
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2014-12-11 6:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> <javascript:;>>:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Recently I needed to create zip artifacts for overlays into WAR.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Maven
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> doesn't have support for "zip" packaging type projects, but
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> MNG-1683
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> wants
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> to introduce it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I am curious why this issue has been ignored. Is it just a lack
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>
> >>>>> time
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> interest? Or is there a philosophical issue behind the delay? I
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> can't
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> see
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> much difference between the zip lifecycle and jar lifecycle
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> except
> >>>>
> >>>>> there
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> no default "compile" or "test" bindings.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>> Paul
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> ---------
> >>>>
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> <javascript:;>
> >>>>
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> <javascript:;>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>> --
> >>> Sent from my phone
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Sent from my phone
>
Re: MNG-1683: Zip packaging
Posted by Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>.
I think having an assembly type with a default binding of assembly:single
to the packaging phase and a default descriptor being the zip or zip and
tar.gz descriptors would achieve what is required while simplifying
escalating to more complex descriptors
On Thursday, December 11, 2014, Timothy Astle <ti...@caris.com>
wrote:
> I have a situation/problem/use-case where I would like to take a
> collection of XML schemas and create a bundle of themso that they could be
> included into other projects. The destination projects vary. Some are
> written in Java, some in C++, etc. So I'd like to produce amore platform
> agnostic bundling artifact. At the moment, we lean on Subversion externals,
> which I really dislike doing.
>
> In this type of case, I figured a ZIP packaging type would have described
> the project and produced the expected output, while using Maven. A big
> thing that I like about Maven is how you model the project. Plugins are
> great, but opening up a POM and seeing the packaging type is just so nice
> and explicit.
>
> There are several ways I can accomplish my goal, but somewhere, deepdown,
> Ihad hoped that I'd live long enough to see a first-class ZIP packaging
> type become available. :-)
>
> Tim
>
>
> On 11/12/2014 4:41 AM, domi wrote:
>
>> Hmm, not sure I agree - I think its just fact that users would love to
>> have simpler way to create ZIPs/TARs
>> and the most logical/simple way (from a users point of view) to do this
>> is a packaging typ for these.
>> Domi
>>
>>
>> On 11.12.2014, at 09:27, Stephen Connolly <
>> stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well the real question is what would you do with dependencies?
>>>
>>> So, for example, if you have a zip dependency, do you unpack it and
>>> overlay
>>> or do you copy it in? Or do you do nothing and leave it to the dependency
>>> plugin?
>>>
>>> What about zip vs tar.gz dependency? If building a zip I might expect
>>> exploding the zip dependencies and copy tar.gz?
>>>
>>> A better approach might be an "assembly" packaging with a default
>>> assembly descriptor directory and if empty it falls back to zip and
>>> tar.gz
>>> of target/classes with the resources plugin being in the default
>>> lifecycle
>>> binding
>>>
>>> That would make using the assembly plugin less work and ack the fact
>>> that a
>>> zip or tar.gz needs the descriptor to control file permissions
>>>
>>> On Thursday, December 11, 2014, Anders Hammar <an...@hammar.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, but I don't think making a specific plugin just for adding zip
>>>> packaging is optimal. Hence the idea of having it in the assembly
>>>> plugin.
>>>> Thinking of it though, one very likely wants to create both a zip and a
>>>> tar
>>>> file. So maybe the packaging type should be something else, and then it
>>>> creates both types. But then I always advocate that one maven project
>>>> should only create one artifact...hmm.
>>>>
>>>> /Anders
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org
>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Anders, like make a maven-zip-plugin project?
>>>>> On Dec 11, 2014 1:50 AM, "Anders Hammar" <anders@hammar.net
>>>>>
>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that the zip package type should be part of Maven core,
>>>>>>
>>>>> but
>>>>
>>>>> we could provide some plugin which provides for it as a custom
>>>>>>
>>>>> packaging
>>>>
>>>>> type. Possibly this could be part of the assembly plugin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Anders
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>> <javascript:;>>
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well my experience in building a zip *as a dependency* feels like
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> it's
>>>>
>>>>> hackish. For example, I create a "pom" packaging type and then
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> configure
>>>>>
>>>>>> the assembly plugin for the "package" phase. Okay, but I say this is
>>>>>>> hackish because it's not straight forward, and the zip is a second
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> artifact
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (the pom is first) for installation. This pattern kind of smells to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> me
>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> makes me think an official "zip" type really is needed. Having such a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> type
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> can take away all this boilerplate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Kristian Rosenvold <
>>>>>>> kristian.rosenvold@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Probably because people just use the assembly plugin ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kristian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2014-12-11 6:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <javascript:;>>:
>>>>
>>>>> Recently I needed to create zip artifacts for overlays into WAR.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maven
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> doesn't have support for "zip" packaging type projects, but
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> MNG-1683
>>>>>
>>>>>> wants
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to introduce it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am curious why this issue has been ignored. Is it just a lack
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>
>>>>> time
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> interest? Or is there a philosophical issue behind the delay? I
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>
>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> much difference between the zip lifecycle and jar lifecycle
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> except
>>>>
>>>>> there
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> no default "compile" or "test" bindings.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ---------
>>>>
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <javascript:;>
>>>>
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <javascript:;>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from my phone
>>>
>>
>
--
Sent from my phone
Re: MNG-1683: Zip packaging
Posted by Timothy Astle <ti...@caris.com>.
I have a situation/problem/use-case where I would like to take a
collection of XML schemas and create a bundle of themso that they could
be included into other projects. The destination projects vary. Some
are written in Java, some in C++, etc. So I'd like to produce amore
platform agnostic bundling artifact. At the moment, we lean on
Subversion externals, which I really dislike doing.
In this type of case, I figured a ZIP packaging type would have
described the project and produced the expected output, while using
Maven. A big thing that I like about Maven is how you model the
project. Plugins are great, but opening up a POM and seeing the
packaging type is just so nice and explicit.
There are several ways I can accomplish my goal, but somewhere,
deepdown, Ihad hoped that I'd live long enough to see a first-class ZIP
packaging type become available. :-)
Tim
On 11/12/2014 4:41 AM, domi wrote:
> Hmm, not sure I agree - I think its just fact that users would love to have simpler way to create ZIPs/TARs
> and the most logical/simple way (from a users point of view) to do this is a packaging typ for these.
> Domi
>
>
> On 11.12.2014, at 09:27, Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well the real question is what would you do with dependencies?
>>
>> So, for example, if you have a zip dependency, do you unpack it and overlay
>> or do you copy it in? Or do you do nothing and leave it to the dependency
>> plugin?
>>
>> What about zip vs tar.gz dependency? If building a zip I might expect
>> exploding the zip dependencies and copy tar.gz?
>>
>> A better approach might be an "assembly" packaging with a default
>> assembly descriptor directory and if empty it falls back to zip and tar.gz
>> of target/classes with the resources plugin being in the default lifecycle
>> binding
>>
>> That would make using the assembly plugin less work and ack the fact that a
>> zip or tar.gz needs the descriptor to control file permissions
>>
>> On Thursday, December 11, 2014, Anders Hammar <an...@hammar.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, but I don't think making a specific plugin just for adding zip
>>> packaging is optimal. Hence the idea of having it in the assembly plugin.
>>> Thinking of it though, one very likely wants to create both a zip and a tar
>>> file. So maybe the packaging type should be something else, and then it
>>> creates both types. But then I always advocate that one maven project
>>> should only create one artifact...hmm.
>>>
>>> /Anders
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org
>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anders, like make a maven-zip-plugin project?
>>>> On Dec 11, 2014 1:50 AM, "Anders Hammar" <anders@hammar.net
>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>> I don't think that the zip package type should be part of Maven core,
>>> but
>>>>> we could provide some plugin which provides for it as a custom
>>> packaging
>>>>> type. Possibly this could be part of the assembly plugin.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Anders
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org
>>> <javascript:;>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well my experience in building a zip *as a dependency* feels like
>>> it's
>>>>>> hackish. For example, I create a "pom" packaging type and then
>>>> configure
>>>>>> the assembly plugin for the "package" phase. Okay, but I say this is
>>>>>> hackish because it's not straight forward, and the zip is a second
>>>>> artifact
>>>>>> (the pom is first) for installation. This pattern kind of smells to
>>> me
>>>>> and
>>>>>> makes me think an official "zip" type really is needed. Having such a
>>>>> type
>>>>>> can take away all this boilerplate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Kristian Rosenvold <
>>>>>> kristian.rosenvold@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Probably because people just use the assembly plugin ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kristian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2014-12-11 6:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org
>>> <javascript:;>>:
>>>>>>>> Recently I needed to create zip artifacts for overlays into WAR.
>>>>> Maven
>>>>>>>> doesn't have support for "zip" packaging type projects, but
>>>> MNG-1683
>>>>>>> wants
>>>>>>>> to introduce it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am curious why this issue has been ignored. Is it just a lack
>>> of
>>>>> time
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> interest? Or is there a philosophical issue behind the delay? I
>>>> can't
>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>> much difference between the zip lifecycle and jar lifecycle
>>> except
>>>>>> there
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> no default "compile" or "test" bindings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> <javascript:;>
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>> <javascript:;>
>>>>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from my phone
Re: MNG-1683: Zip packaging
Posted by domi <do...@fortysix.ch>.
Hmm, not sure I agree - I think its just fact that users would love to have simpler way to create ZIPs/TARs
and the most logical/simple way (from a users point of view) to do this is a packaging typ for these.
Domi
On 11.12.2014, at 09:27, Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well the real question is what would you do with dependencies?
>
> So, for example, if you have a zip dependency, do you unpack it and overlay
> or do you copy it in? Or do you do nothing and leave it to the dependency
> plugin?
>
> What about zip vs tar.gz dependency? If building a zip I might expect
> exploding the zip dependencies and copy tar.gz?
>
> A better approach might be an "assembly" packaging with a default
> assembly descriptor directory and if empty it falls back to zip and tar.gz
> of target/classes with the resources plugin being in the default lifecycle
> binding
>
> That would make using the assembly plugin less work and ack the fact that a
> zip or tar.gz needs the descriptor to control file permissions
>
> On Thursday, December 11, 2014, Anders Hammar <an...@hammar.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes, but I don't think making a specific plugin just for adding zip
>> packaging is optimal. Hence the idea of having it in the assembly plugin.
>> Thinking of it though, one very likely wants to create both a zip and a tar
>> file. So maybe the packaging type should be something else, and then it
>> creates both types. But then I always advocate that one maven project
>> should only create one artifact...hmm.
>>
>> /Anders
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org
>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>
>>> Anders, like make a maven-zip-plugin project?
>>> On Dec 11, 2014 1:50 AM, "Anders Hammar" <anders@hammar.net
>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't think that the zip package type should be part of Maven core,
>> but
>>>> we could provide some plugin which provides for it as a custom
>> packaging
>>>> type. Possibly this could be part of the assembly plugin.
>>>>
>>>> /Anders
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org
>> <javascript:;>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well my experience in building a zip *as a dependency* feels like
>> it's
>>>>> hackish. For example, I create a "pom" packaging type and then
>>> configure
>>>>> the assembly plugin for the "package" phase. Okay, but I say this is
>>>>> hackish because it's not straight forward, and the zip is a second
>>>> artifact
>>>>> (the pom is first) for installation. This pattern kind of smells to
>> me
>>>> and
>>>>> makes me think an official "zip" type really is needed. Having such a
>>>> type
>>>>> can take away all this boilerplate.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Kristian Rosenvold <
>>>>> kristian.rosenvold@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Probably because people just use the assembly plugin ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kristian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2014-12-11 6:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org
>> <javascript:;>>:
>>>>>>> Recently I needed to create zip artifacts for overlays into WAR.
>>>> Maven
>>>>>>> doesn't have support for "zip" packaging type projects, but
>>> MNG-1683
>>>>>> wants
>>>>>>> to introduce it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am curious why this issue has been ignored. Is it just a lack
>> of
>>>> time
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> interest? Or is there a philosophical issue behind the delay? I
>>> can't
>>>>> see
>>>>>>> much difference between the zip lifecycle and jar lifecycle
>> except
>>>>> there
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> no default "compile" or "test" bindings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> <javascript:;>
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>> <javascript:;>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Sent from my phone
Re: MNG-1683: Zip packaging
Posted by Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>.
Well the real question is what would you do with dependencies?
So, for example, if you have a zip dependency, do you unpack it and overlay
or do you copy it in? Or do you do nothing and leave it to the dependency
plugin?
What about zip vs tar.gz dependency? If building a zip I might expect
exploding the zip dependencies and copy tar.gz?
A better approach might be an "assembly" packaging with a default
assembly descriptor directory and if empty it falls back to zip and tar.gz
of target/classes with the resources plugin being in the default lifecycle
binding
That would make using the assembly plugin less work and ack the fact that a
zip or tar.gz needs the descriptor to control file permissions
On Thursday, December 11, 2014, Anders Hammar <an...@hammar.net> wrote:
> Yes, but I don't think making a specific plugin just for adding zip
> packaging is optimal. Hence the idea of having it in the assembly plugin.
> Thinking of it though, one very likely wants to create both a zip and a tar
> file. So maybe the packaging type should be something else, and then it
> creates both types. But then I always advocate that one maven project
> should only create one artifact...hmm.
>
> /Anders
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > Anders, like make a maven-zip-plugin project?
> > On Dec 11, 2014 1:50 AM, "Anders Hammar" <anders@hammar.net
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think that the zip package type should be part of Maven core,
> but
> > > we could provide some plugin which provides for it as a custom
> packaging
> > > type. Possibly this could be part of the assembly plugin.
> > >
> > > /Anders
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well my experience in building a zip *as a dependency* feels like
> it's
> > > > hackish. For example, I create a "pom" packaging type and then
> > configure
> > > > the assembly plugin for the "package" phase. Okay, but I say this is
> > > > hackish because it's not straight forward, and the zip is a second
> > > artifact
> > > > (the pom is first) for installation. This pattern kind of smells to
> me
> > > and
> > > > makes me think an official "zip" type really is needed. Having such a
> > > type
> > > > can take away all this boilerplate.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Kristian Rosenvold <
> > > > kristian.rosenvold@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Probably because people just use the assembly plugin ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Kristian
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2014-12-11 6:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>:
> > > > > > Recently I needed to create zip artifacts for overlays into WAR.
> > > Maven
> > > > > > doesn't have support for "zip" packaging type projects, but
> > MNG-1683
> > > > > wants
> > > > > > to introduce it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am curious why this issue has been ignored. Is it just a lack
> of
> > > time
> > > > > or
> > > > > > interest? Or is there a philosophical issue behind the delay? I
> > can't
> > > > see
> > > > > > much difference between the zip lifecycle and jar lifecycle
> except
> > > > there
> > > > > is
> > > > > > no default "compile" or "test" bindings.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Sent from my phone
Re: MNG-1683: Zip packaging
Posted by Anders Hammar <an...@hammar.net>.
Yes, but I don't think making a specific plugin just for adding zip
packaging is optimal. Hence the idea of having it in the assembly plugin.
Thinking of it though, one very likely wants to create both a zip and a tar
file. So maybe the packaging type should be something else, and then it
creates both types. But then I always advocate that one maven project
should only create one artifact...hmm.
/Anders
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
> Anders, like make a maven-zip-plugin project?
> On Dec 11, 2014 1:50 AM, "Anders Hammar" <an...@hammar.net> wrote:
>
> > I don't think that the zip package type should be part of Maven core, but
> > we could provide some plugin which provides for it as a custom packaging
> > type. Possibly this could be part of the assembly plugin.
> >
> > /Anders
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Well my experience in building a zip *as a dependency* feels like it's
> > > hackish. For example, I create a "pom" packaging type and then
> configure
> > > the assembly plugin for the "package" phase. Okay, but I say this is
> > > hackish because it's not straight forward, and the zip is a second
> > artifact
> > > (the pom is first) for installation. This pattern kind of smells to me
> > and
> > > makes me think an official "zip" type really is needed. Having such a
> > type
> > > can take away all this boilerplate.
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Kristian Rosenvold <
> > > kristian.rosenvold@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Probably because people just use the assembly plugin ?
> > > >
> > > > Kristian
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2014-12-11 6:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>:
> > > > > Recently I needed to create zip artifacts for overlays into WAR.
> > Maven
> > > > > doesn't have support for "zip" packaging type projects, but
> MNG-1683
> > > > wants
> > > > > to introduce it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am curious why this issue has been ignored. Is it just a lack of
> > time
> > > > or
> > > > > interest? Or is there a philosophical issue behind the delay? I
> can't
> > > see
> > > > > much difference between the zip lifecycle and jar lifecycle except
> > > there
> > > > is
> > > > > no default "compile" or "test" bindings.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: MNG-1683: Zip packaging
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
Anders, like make a maven-zip-plugin project?
On Dec 11, 2014 1:50 AM, "Anders Hammar" <an...@hammar.net> wrote:
> I don't think that the zip package type should be part of Maven core, but
> we could provide some plugin which provides for it as a custom packaging
> type. Possibly this could be part of the assembly plugin.
>
> /Anders
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Well my experience in building a zip *as a dependency* feels like it's
> > hackish. For example, I create a "pom" packaging type and then configure
> > the assembly plugin for the "package" phase. Okay, but I say this is
> > hackish because it's not straight forward, and the zip is a second
> artifact
> > (the pom is first) for installation. This pattern kind of smells to me
> and
> > makes me think an official "zip" type really is needed. Having such a
> type
> > can take away all this boilerplate.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Paul
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Kristian Rosenvold <
> > kristian.rosenvold@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Probably because people just use the assembly plugin ?
> > >
> > > Kristian
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2014-12-11 6:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>:
> > > > Recently I needed to create zip artifacts for overlays into WAR.
> Maven
> > > > doesn't have support for "zip" packaging type projects, but MNG-1683
> > > wants
> > > > to introduce it.
> > > >
> > > > I am curious why this issue has been ignored. Is it just a lack of
> time
> > > or
> > > > interest? Or is there a philosophical issue behind the delay? I can't
> > see
> > > > much difference between the zip lifecycle and jar lifecycle except
> > there
> > > is
> > > > no default "compile" or "test" bindings.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Paul
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: MNG-1683: Zip packaging
Posted by Anders Hammar <an...@hammar.net>.
I don't think that the zip package type should be part of Maven core, but
we could provide some plugin which provides for it as a custom packaging
type. Possibly this could be part of the assembly plugin.
/Anders
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
> Well my experience in building a zip *as a dependency* feels like it's
> hackish. For example, I create a "pom" packaging type and then configure
> the assembly plugin for the "package" phase. Okay, but I say this is
> hackish because it's not straight forward, and the zip is a second artifact
> (the pom is first) for installation. This pattern kind of smells to me and
> makes me think an official "zip" type really is needed. Having such a type
> can take away all this boilerplate.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Kristian Rosenvold <
> kristian.rosenvold@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Probably because people just use the assembly plugin ?
> >
> > Kristian
> >
> >
> >
> > 2014-12-11 6:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>:
> > > Recently I needed to create zip artifacts for overlays into WAR. Maven
> > > doesn't have support for "zip" packaging type projects, but MNG-1683
> > wants
> > > to introduce it.
> > >
> > > I am curious why this issue has been ignored. Is it just a lack of time
> > or
> > > interest? Or is there a philosophical issue behind the delay? I can't
> see
> > > much difference between the zip lifecycle and jar lifecycle except
> there
> > is
> > > no default "compile" or "test" bindings.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Paul
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: MNG-1683: Zip packaging
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
Well my experience in building a zip *as a dependency* feels like it's
hackish. For example, I create a "pom" packaging type and then configure
the assembly plugin for the "package" phase. Okay, but I say this is
hackish because it's not straight forward, and the zip is a second artifact
(the pom is first) for installation. This pattern kind of smells to me and
makes me think an official "zip" type really is needed. Having such a type
can take away all this boilerplate.
Cheers,
Paul
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Kristian Rosenvold <
kristian.rosenvold@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Probably because people just use the assembly plugin ?
>
> Kristian
>
>
>
> 2014-12-11 6:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>:
> > Recently I needed to create zip artifacts for overlays into WAR. Maven
> > doesn't have support for "zip" packaging type projects, but MNG-1683
> wants
> > to introduce it.
> >
> > I am curious why this issue has been ignored. Is it just a lack of time
> or
> > interest? Or is there a philosophical issue behind the delay? I can't see
> > much difference between the zip lifecycle and jar lifecycle except there
> is
> > no default "compile" or "test" bindings.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Paul
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
Re: MNG-1683: Zip packaging
Posted by Kristian Rosenvold <kr...@gmail.com>.
Probably because people just use the assembly plugin ?
Kristian
2014-12-11 6:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>:
> Recently I needed to create zip artifacts for overlays into WAR. Maven
> doesn't have support for "zip" packaging type projects, but MNG-1683 wants
> to introduce it.
>
> I am curious why this issue has been ignored. Is it just a lack of time or
> interest? Or is there a philosophical issue behind the delay? I can't see
> much difference between the zip lifecycle and jar lifecycle except there is
> no default "compile" or "test" bindings.
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
RE: MNG-1683: Zip packaging
Posted by Robert Patrick <ro...@oracle.com>.
But there is nothing stopping people from adding custom packaging types, right? The real question is there enough demand to warrant folding it into Maven itself versus making the people that need it define it themselves. We have defined a number of custom packaging types for our own component archive formats and it is pretty straightforward...
--
Robert Patrick <ro...@oracle.com>
VP, FMW Platform Engineering, Oracle Corporation
7460 Warren Pkwy, Ste. 300 Office: +1.972.963.2872
Frisco, TX 75034, USA Mobile: +1.469.556.9450
Professional Oracle WebLogic Server
by Robert Patrick, Gregory Nyberg, and Philip Aston
with Josh Bregman and Paul Done
Book Home Page: http://www.wrox.com/
Kindle Version: http://www.amazon.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Benedict [mailto:pbenedict@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:38 PM
To: Apache Maven Developers
Subject: MNG-1683: Zip packaging
Recently I needed to create zip artifacts for overlays into WAR. Maven doesn't have support for "zip" packaging type projects, but MNG-1683 wants to introduce it.
I am curious why this issue has been ignored. Is it just a lack of time or interest? Or is there a philosophical issue behind the delay? I can't see much difference between the zip lifecycle and jar lifecycle except there is no default "compile" or "test" bindings.
Cheers,
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org