Re: [Geoserver-devel] Preferred way to include optional module in deployment bundle?

[Ben Caradoc-D. <Ben...@cs...>]

Justin Deoliveira wrote:
> Yes, the preferred approach is to use a profile. So +1 on committing the 
> profile to web/pom.xml (and I assume community/pom.xml).

Thanks, I will submit a patch for web/pom.xml and modify 
community/pom.xml when I create community/app-schema. (I'll be back in 
the new year.)

> As a convention we try to keep the profile name the same as the 
> community module name, which it looks like you have.

Yes, I think I prefer this approach, after my experiences in the 1.6.x 
community area ...

> -Justin
> 
> Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
>> [right list this time]
>>
>> What is the preferred way to include an optional/unsupported module in
>> geoserver.war? I have a local modification to web/pom.xml that adds a
>> dependency on gt-app-schema when profile "app-schema" is active. Thus
>> building geoserver/src with
>>
>> mvn -Papp-schema install
>>
>> result in a deployment bundle (web/target/geoserver.war) that contains
>> the gt-app-schema jar.
>>
>> Is this the preferred approach? If so, can I submit this change for
>> inclusion in web/pom.xml?
>>
> 
> 


-- 
Ben Caradoc-Davies <Ben...@cs...>
Software Engineer, CSIRO Exploration and Mining
Australian Resources Research Centre
26 Dick Perry Ave, Kensington WA 6151, Australia