[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [mojarra-dev] Slight code reorg
|
I got to discussing this with some other WildFly engineers, and
Farah (thanks! :) suggested just using a separate profile. That
would leave the code base as it (there's a fair bit of util code
shared between impl and API class, which doesn't feel right to me,
fwiw), and require only a simple build change, which would look a
lot like this:
diff --git a/impl/pom.xml b/impl/pom.xml
index 26f6700860..4b5b74d412 100644
--- a/impl/pom.xml
+++ b/impl/pom.xml
@@ -442,4 +442,72 @@
</plugin>
</plugins>
</build>
+ <profiles>
+ <profile>
+ <id>stripped-jar</id>
+ <build>
+
<finalName>${project.artifactId}-${project.version}-stripped</finalName>
+ <plugins>
+ <plugin>
+
<groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
+
<artifactId>maven-jar-plugin</artifactId>
+ <version>3.2.2</version>
+ <configuration>
+ <archive>
+
<manifestFile>${project.build.outputDirectory}/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF</manifestFile>
+ </archive>
+ <excludes>
+
<exclude>**/*.java</exclude>
+
<exclude>**/*.html</exclude>
+
<exclude>jakarta/**</exclude>
+
<exclude>META-INF/services/com.sun.faces.spi.injectionprovider</exclude>
+
<exclude>META-INF/mojarra-jsf-api-probe-provider.xml</exclude>
+ </excludes>
+ </configuration>
+ </plugin>
+ <!-- Creates the source jar -->
+ <plugin>
+
<groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
+
<artifactId>maven-source-plugin</artifactId>
+ <version>3.2.1</version>
+ <configuration>
+ <excludes>
+
<exclude>jakarta/**</exclude>
+
<exclude>META-INF/services/com.sun.faces.spi.injectionprovider</exclude>
+
<exclude>META-INF/mojarra-jsf-api-probe-provider.xml</exclude>
+ </excludes>
+ </configuration>
+ <executions>
+ <execution>
+
<id>attach-sources</id>
+ <goals>
+
<goal>jar</goal>
+ </goals>
+ </execution>
+ </executions>
+ </plugin>
+
+ <!--
+ Create Javadoc for API jar
+ -->
+ <plugin>
+
<groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
+
<artifactId>maven-javadoc-plugin</artifactId>
+ <version>3.3.1</version>
+ <executions>
+ <execution>
+
<id>attach-javadocs</id>
+ <configuration>
+
<excludePackageNames>jakarta</excludePackageNames>
+ </configuration>
+ <goals>
+
<goal>jar</goal>
+ </goals>
+ </execution>
+ </executions>
+ </plugin>
+ </plugins>
+ </build>
+ </profile>
+ </profiles>
</project>
Thoughts on either approach? I can go either way, so I hope at
least one is acceptable. :)
On 6/8/22 6:37 AM, Jason Lee wrote:
Currently for WildFly, we maintain a fork of the Mojarra code
base. There are some historical reasons for that that are no
longer relevant, so I'd like to transition us to using the
upstream Mojarra artifacts directly. One of things we do as part
of our build and packaging step, though, is to exclude the API
classes (javax.*/jakarta.*), which we include via
jakarta.faces:jakarta.faces-api. As things stand now, we will
need to continue maintaining our fork to continue the exclusions
from the impl archive (I believe we separate the API classes so
that we can prevent exposing impl classes to deployments, fwiw).
What I would like to propose and get some feedback on is
creating a new module in https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/mojarra/
to move the jakarta.* classes to a new module (e.g., api) and
add a dependency on that to impl. I think that would also
require some sort of change in jakarta.faces:jakarta.faces-api
to adapt to that (unless this new module simply published under
that G:A if Central would allow it).
Does anyone see a reason for NOT doing that? Things usually
have a reason for being the way the are, so if I'm missing
something, please educate me before I put the work in to create
a PR. :P
Thanks!
_______________________________________________
mojarra-dev mailing list
mojarra-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mojarra-dev