Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

(#108) handle Pom projects #109

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

zmeggyesi
Copy link

This PR adds a new property, ignorePomPackaging, defaulting to true to maintain backwards compatibility. If set to false by the user, the plugin will not skip projects with the packaging pom, making it useful for handling monorepo-style structures, where the outer Java project is also host to other, non-Java folders that need the results of the protobuffer compilation.

While I expect this to be a little-used switch, I feel its implementation will add a dimension of usefulness to the plugin, at no cost to existing users.

Rationale: in certain use cases, it may happen that the plugin needs to operate on certain directories of an otherwise POM-packaged project. The new switch allows this to happen, while maintaining backwards compatibility by defaulting to the previous operation.
@zmeggyesi
Copy link
Author

@os72 It'd be important to me to get this this into release - currently, I need to rely on my fork of the plugin instead of loading properly from Maven Central.

If there are any changes that need to be made, let me know, and I'm at your service.

@JHahnHRO
Copy link

I'd also like this change to happen. Use case for me is that I want to release some .proto in a separate artefact which is simply a .zip created with the maven assembly plugin. However good practice would be to have an automated test to see if the .proto file(s) still compile after changes. I cannot use the protoc-jar plugin for this since it refuses to work with my "pom"-packaged project.

@os72
Copy link
Owner

os72 commented Jan 14, 2023

I can be reached on gitter to discuss, this project is looking for incentives..

@zmeggyesi
Copy link
Author

zmeggyesi commented Jan 17, 2023 via email

@os72
Copy link
Owner

os72 commented Jan 17, 2023

The project has many thousands of downloads, and most users are enterprises. So yeah, without incentives (sponsorship/contracts from users) it may fall out of maintenance

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants