[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [cf-dev] Problem for building californium following pom.xml changes
|
Ahhh, now I see the "pattern" in the weird profile definitions :D
I like the solution with the control files because it also makes documentation easier.
I will fix it.
Ciao
Matthias
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Hudalla Kai (INST/ESY)
> Sent: Freitag, 2. Oktober 2015 10:45
> To: Californium (Cf) developer discussions <cf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [cf-dev] Problem for building californium following pom.xml
> changes
>
> Matthias,
>
> the problem with defining all profiles in the parent POM is that if you now
> run a build on e.g. Scandium and run "mvn -DcreateJavadoc install" JavaDocs
> will not only be created for Scandium Core (which makes sense) but also for
> Scandium Examples (which does not make any sense and is only a waste of
> time during build). That is the reason why I originally placed the profile
> definitions into POM files selectively only.
>
> Now that you have pulled up the profile definitions I figured out an
> alternative way to prevent unnecessary execution of profiles in sub-
> modules.
> We can put an additional check for the absence of a file into the profile
> activation of e.g. the "javadoc" profile:
>
> <profile>
> <!-- this profile generates javadoc to check integrity --
> >
> <id>javadoc</id>
> <activation>
> <activeByDefault>false</activeByDefault>
> <property>
> <name>createJavadoc</name>
> </property>
> <file>
> <missing>noJavadoc</missing>
> </file>
> </activation>
> <build>
> <plugins>
> <plugin>
>
> <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
> <artifactId>maven-javadoc-
> plugin</artifactId>
> </plugin>
> </plugins>
> </build>
> </profile>
>
> This way, the profile will be executed if the "createJavadoc" system property
> is defined (e.g. using mvn -DcreateJavadoc) AND the file "noJavadoc" is NOT
> present in the submodule.
> We can then selectively disable execution of a profile by simply putting such
> a file (may be empty or contain some explanatory text) into e.g. the
> Scandium Examples module.
>
> This is not ideal but I think it is a practical (and not too ugly) way of having the
> best of both worlds:
> 1) single point of profile definition AND
> 2) preventing unnecessary (and time consuming) execution of plugins
>
> What do you think?
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards
>
> Kai Hudalla
>
> Chief Software Architect
> Technology Strategy
>
> Bosch Software Innovations GmbH
> Schöneberger Ufer 89-91
> 10785 Berlin
> GERMANY
> www.bosch-si.com
>
> Phone +49 (30) 726112-159
> Mobile +49 (151) 54336335
> kai.hudalla@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Registered office: Berlin, Register court: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB
> 148411 B;
> Executives: Dr.-Ing. Rainer Kallenbach, Michael Hahn
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]" im
> Auftrag von "Kovatsch Matthias [kovatsch@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. Oktober 2015 18:49
> An: Californium (Cf) developer discussions
> Betreff: Re: [cf-dev] Problem for building californium following pom.xml
> changes
>
> Okay, I threw the signing profiles in the same pot without looking... I assume
> eclipse_jar_signing was added for Hudson, so we can generate the sandbox
> JAR.
>
> Furthermore, I will pick create_gpg_signature and release_to_maven. I will
> put them into the parent together with Javadoc.
>
> Please just double-check if these are the right profiles.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > On Behalf Of Kovatsch Matthias
> > Sent: Donnerstag, 1. Oktober 2015 18:37
> > To: Californium (Cf) developer discussions <cf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: [cf-dev] Problem for building californium following
> > pom.xml changes
> >
> > While working on the POMs, I noticed that the profiles are still
> > distributed, sometimes duplicated, and slightly inconsistent:
> >
> > javadoc (all but parent)
> >
> > eclipse_jar_signing (element-connector, scandium-parent, californium-
> > parent, tools) create_gpg_signature (scandium)
> >
> > release_to_maven (scandium)
> > release (parent, actinium)
> > maven_central (element-connector)
> >
> > I will move the profiles also to the overall parent POM.
> > Which is the latest or proper profile for signing? Or are they for
> > different purposes?
> > Which is the proper release profile?
> >
> > Ciao
> > Matthias
> > _______________________________________________
> > cf-dev mailing list
> > cf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
> > unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev
> _______________________________________________
> cf-dev mailing list
> cf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
> from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev
> _______________________________________________
> cf-dev mailing list
> cf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
> from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev
