cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sylvain Wallez <>
Subject Re: Including source files in jars
Date Tue, 08 Jun 2004 21:47:08 GMT
Joerg Heinicke wrote:

> On 08.06.2004 08:38, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>> Read my answer to Antonio: having separate files gives no guarantee 
>> that the sources you have in the source archive are the one that were 
>> actually used for the build. And when releasing projects, it is IMO 
>> safer to ship them with the sources if a non-release version is used.
> Not really convinced, but I can live with it. And now that you are the 
> PMC chair ... :-P

Hey, being the chair gives me no particular decision power!

>>>> This feature is enabled using the "build.archive-sources" property, 
>>>> e.g.
>>>>   "build -Dbuild.archive-sources=true webapp".
>>> We should add it to (no preference on enabled or 
>>> disabled ATM). I had a look to what category it fits at best. The 
>>> "build" category is just about directories, the "Build Exclusions" 
>>> category would probably the best, but there the properties are named 
>>> in another style, "exclude.deprecated" for example.
>>> Add it to that latter category and rename the property to e.g. 
>>> "exclude.archive-sources"?
>> "exclude.archive-sources" is fine if you think it better fits the 
>> build property naming scheme. Or better "exclude.source-in-jars" 
>> which is a noun instead of a verb?
> Used include.sources-in-jars. I don't like the exclude syntax so much 
> and there are already other include.* properties (see below that added 
> one). Sometimes I will change all excludes in includes as it was 
> already done for the blocks.

Agree. "include" is more understable than "exclude" which is a negation.


Sylvain Wallez                                  Anyware Technologies 
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }

View raw message