Le jeu. 27 août 2026 à 09:31, Martin Desruisseaux via dev < [email protected]> a écrit :
> Le 27/08/2026 à 09:18, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit : > > > Still you need to define how you do deploy that (can't be a single jar > but > > a subproject should stay a single jar) so you will need some maven work > > there and yes it is already doable > > It is already done. The pull request does that, and this is why it is > needed for multi-modules support. > > This work was done together with the migration to the jar plugin because > both of them requires a large refactoring of the code base, so it was > done in one single refactoring. > Hmm, maybe I misread the diff but AFAIK current PR does only violate artifactId value by overriding it silently by the module id so we end up with a pom which id decoralated from our coordinate of the artifacts, inconsistencies with other plus (sources, javadoc etc - agree we could align them but also think we should stick to our model and not disrespect it). I'm also a bit worried on the coordinate -> file names vs java modules inconsistencies we can have which can create a lot of friction for consumers (either maven side or java module sides dependencing how deploy is done). Did I miss something which makes it overall consistent? Should we just use a multimodule project with groupid=java module id and enable to build the group of maven modules/subprojects (which wouldnt be subproject but really modules btw) at once? > > Martin > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
