Bug 840634

Summary: Define an rhq-agent-plugin Maven packaging type
Product: [Other] RHQ Project Reporter: Elias Ross <genman>
Component: Build SystemAssignee: RHQ Project Maintainer <rhq-maint>
Status: NEW --- QA Contact: Mike Foley <mfoley>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 4.4CC: hrupp
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Description Elias Ross 2012-07-16 14:35:23 EDT
The problem is the 'copy-dependencies' plugin doesn't work with RHQ plugins.

Hence the bug below.


Bug 787264 - Plugin dependencies; commons-logging and cobertura have wrong scope (edit) [NEEDINFO] 

[reply] [-] Comment 2 Ian Springer 2012-06-06 10:48:22 EDT 

Defining an rhq-agent-plugin Maven packaging type that encapsulates things like copying runtime deps into the lib dir and validating the plugin descriptor is a good idea and something I have been wanting to do for a while. Can you create a separate BZ for that?


Ian, here is your bug.
Comment 1 Heiko W. Rupp 2012-07-19 14:20:58 EDT
Had a conversation with Ian, has he unfortunately is no longer with the RHQ team

Ian: so maven has different packaging types - pom, jar, war, ear, etc.
you define a module's packaging type in its pom via <packaging>
there is a way to define custom packaging types (i think via a maven plugin)
so the idea here would be to define an rhq-agent-plugin packaging type
and then certain stuff specific to rhq plugins could be done under the covers
and perhaps some custom config could be done via props or custom elements in 
the pom

me: So instead creating foo-plugin.jar we'd create foo-plugin.rpl ? Or would 
that be sort of transient and the final outcome would still be a jar?

Ian Springer:
final outcome would still be a jar, but the pom would look a little different
hopefully would be less verbose

Ian Springer:
for example, you would not need to use the dependency plugin to copy all 
runtime deps into the plugin jar's lib dir
this could be done automatically be the rhq-plugin packaging impl code
Ah, now I start to understand. That sounds cool and very helpful

Ian: it would cut down the size of plugin poms and improve readability