After adding the maven tasks to falcon, I started adding the same to the sdk itself. Guess I'll start adding the deployment of the compiler artifacts and then continue with the framework. I think manually constructing and deploying the artifacts will give us a lot more control over what's done and how everything is structured. Having to specialize the mavenizer more and more sort of doesn't feel right.
Chris -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Christofer Dutz [mailto:christofer.d...@c-ware.de] Gesendet: Samstag, 4. Oktober 2014 21:03 An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: AW: How to handle the groupIds of the default and falcon compiler No ... not exactly. Currently the org.apache.flex:compiler artifact is of type "pom" and hereby doesn't have any library behind it. All it does is to transitively pull in all the jars in the lib dir of the FDK. In Falcon there is actually only one jar containing the entire compiler so I created it as a "jar" artifact with dependencies. After finding out that all the other jars don't make sense in a maven environment as they are empty with a simple METAINF file pointing to a class in the main jar. So eventually with the old compiler this is similar and I would adjust the generated poms accordingly. This would however introduce something people allready using Flex in Flexmojos would have to change. But thinking about it ... we haven't released anything yet so it's not yet really official. I thing tweaking a little is absolutely legitimate. Chris -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Frédéric THOMAS [mailto:webdoubl...@hotmail.com] Gesendet: Samstag, 4. Oktober 2014 18:27 An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: RE: How to handle the groupIds of the default and falcon compiler The 2 solution seems more logical to me, can you see a drawback ? > Another thing I will probalby change in the mavenizer is not to generate a pom-typed compiler artifact, but to have the jar containing the compiler become the root and I add all the dependencies tot hat. Do you mean its pom.xml in a subfolder of the META-INF directory ? that's just the way it should be IMO. Frédéric THOMAS > From: christofer.d...@c-ware.de > To: dev@flex.apache.org > Subject: How to handle the groupIds of the default and falcon compiler > Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2014 16:09:50 +0000 > > Hi guys, > > sorry for all the flexmojos & maven spam recently, but I'm trying to > get some things finished ;-| > > Usually we had all the compiler artifacts deployed with the group-id > "org.apache.flex:compiler" and all oft he artifacts it needed were in > "org.apache.flex.compiler:xxx" (The root artifact had a groupId > without the "compiler" at the end) > > Now at first I had Falcon generated to the same group id, but had the > root-object be "org.apache.flex.compiler:falcon-compiler" > > To me it sort of doesn't feel quite right and I would like to sort this out. > So I have different suggestions: > > > 1. I leave the old structure unchanged, and deploy falcon to > "org.apache.flex:falcon-compiler" and all it's dependencies to > "org.apache.flex.falcon-compiler:xxx" > > 2. I change the pom-artifact for the old compiler to > "org.apache.flex.compiler:compiler", leave the rest unchanged and deploy > falcon to "org.apache.flex.compiler:falcon-compiler" > > 3. Some other idea one of you might come up with :) > > So what do you think? > > Another thing I will probalby change in the mavenizer is not to generate a > pom-typed compiler artifact, but to have the jar containing the compiler > become the root and I add all the dependencies tot hat. > > So I hope I didn't confuse you ... don't want to decide stuff like this on my > own. > > Chris
