maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Timothy Astle <>
Subject Re: MNG-1683: Zip packaging
Date Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:26:10 GMT
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. :-)


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 <> 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 <> 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 <
>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>> Anders, like make a maven-zip-plugin project?
>>>> On Dec 11, 2014 1:50 AM, "Anders Hammar" <
>>> <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 <
>>> <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
>>>>>> 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
>>> me
>>>>> and
>>>>>> makes me think an official "zip" type really is needed. Having such
>>>>> type
>>>>>> can take away all this boilerplate.
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Kristian Rosenvold <
>>>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Probably because people just use the assembly plugin ?
>>>>>>> Kristian
>>>>>>> 2014-12-11 6:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict <
>>> <javascript:;>>:
>>>>>>>> Recently I needed to create zip artifacts for overlays into
>>>>> 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?
>>>> 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:
>>> <javascript:;>
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>> <javascript:;>
>> -- 
>> Sent from my phone

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message