On 02/11/05, Kenney Westerhof <
kenney@...> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Mark Hobson wrote:
>
> Just some thoughts:
>
> The 'war' packaging _NEEDS_ a .war to be produced in case it will be used
> in an ear. If you replace the war packaging by 'exploded', then there is
> no artifact which will fail the install goal etc.
This is true, but I guess the lifecycle would only be modified if the
tomcat:exploded goal was present in the list of goals to execute -
kinda smells of undeterministic behaviour though..
> People want to test their webapps without running the war:war goal
> since it is so slow. I can understand that.
>
> Perhaps a new lifecycle phase 'dev' or something, just before 'package',
> might be useful in this case.
Maybe a 'prepare-package' phase? I'm not sure how this would work
with war:inplace though, since the results of this goal are mutually
exclusive to the war:exploded and war:war goals.
> Another way would be to optimize the WarMojo to update the .war instead of
> recreating it each time. Then the war:war will always run, and you bind
> war:exploded to the package phase too. This will eliminate the performance
> penalty, I hope.
This would certainly help, although tomcat:inplace still wouldn't be
able to depend on war:inplace.
Cheers,
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail:
dev-help@...
