maven-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Richard Sand" <>
Subject RE: opinion on obfuscator plugin default execution phase?
Date Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:55:51 GMT
That's a good idea too. Really we'd want the tests to be performed against
both to isolate whether obfuscation specifically has caused the problem.

What's the best way to accomplish this? I'm thinking we let the post-compile
testing occur, then obfuscate, then re-run the testing. Can that flow be
wired together in the pom.xml or is there something programmatic I can do in
the plug-in (along with some configuration parameters) to tell maven to
re-execute the testing with the new/updated artifacts from the plug-in?

Thanks for the feedback!

Richard Sand | CEO
IDF Connect, Inc. 
2207 Concord Ave, #359
Wilmington | Delaware 19803 | USA 
Office: +1 302 425 0516 | Fax: +1 856 866 1899
Mobile: +1 267 984 3651

-----Original Message-----
From: Andreas Sewe [] 
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 4:06 AM
Subject: Re: opinion on obfuscator plugin default execution phase?

Hi Richard,

> I can see it both ways... If it runs at the packaging phase, it'll 
> start (by default) by processing the packaged artifact created by the 
> default packaging and either overwriting the artifact or creating a 
> new one with a classifier (e.g. "<artifact>-small").
> If it runs at the pre-packaging phase, I'd have it start processing on 
> the output folder from the compile phase.

without taking a stance on which of the two options is better/more
Maven-like, I would also add an option 3: obfuscate the class files in the
process-classes phase [1]. That way the unit tests run against the
obfuscated classes, which may expose problems due to the obfuscation that
would otherwise go unnoticed.

Hope that helps.



To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message