maven-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hervé Boutemy (JIRA) <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (MSITE-453) Add new lifecycle bindings for "maven-skin" packaging
Date Sat, 28 Apr 2018 06:24:00 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MSITE-453?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Hervé Boutemy updated MSITE-453:
--------------------------------
    Summary: Add new lifecycle bindings for "maven-skin" packaging  (was: Add new lifecylce
mapping "maven-skin")

> Add new lifecycle bindings for "maven-skin" packaging
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: MSITE-453
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MSITE-453
>             Project: Maven Site Plugin
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>            Reporter: Benjamin Bentmann
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: backlog
>
>         Attachments: new-lifecycle-mappings.patch
>
>
> Currently, creating a custom skin for Maven is done by a project with packaging "jar".
The attached patch intents to introduce an individual lifecycle mapping named "maven-skin"
for this purpose.
> Why that? I consider the re-usage of the "jar" packaging an abuse for the case of building
a Maven skin. On the one hand, the "jar" packaging does too much. Skins usually do not get
compiled or unit-tested, do they? Since any unused plugin invocation is an unnecessary risk
of a build failure (sorry to say), I would appreciate a lifecycle mapping that is not overdressed.
On the other hand, I could image that skins required some additional processing some day like
a check whether all required images are present in the skin or whether the CSS references
unknown IDs/names. Having a distinct lifecylcle mapping in the Maven Core would allow for
a central definition of the build steps instead of requiring all users to extend the "jar"
packaging.
> Especially for the first reason, i.e. having a packaging that does not more than required,
the patch also defines a "resources" packaging. Such a packaging is intended for JARs that
just contain resources one wants to share with other projects like rulesets for PMD, Checkstyle,
etc. The lifecylcle mappings "resources" and "maven-skin" are identiical (now) but I consider
it a bad practice to merge different use-cases just because they happen to be equal by coindicence.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Mime
View raw message