-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 39
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
Should gwt-app generate jszip artifacts? #2
Comments
@cromwellian Do you have an opinion one way or the other? |
What comes to mind first is the gae maven plugin has a gae:unpack and sticking this in the eclipse lifecycle is a pain. the other gwt plugin must do some copying which is nice for the testing web mode from the folder with mobile builds. I'm fine either way as long as there some directions one options :) Good job. :) |
Not sure if its the right place here, but it would be great to have a gwt-app.zip file after a build that contains GWT compiler output (including additional web resources from modules 'public' folder). The reason is, that we don't serve static content from our app servers directly but use our load balancers for this task instead. So it would really be nice if we could opt-in having gwt-app.zip (compiled client/shared code + web resources) and gwt-app.war (shared/server code + GWT compilation output that may need to be on the server as well, e.g. GWT-RPC *.rpc files, symbols map for stack trace deobfuscation, etc.) without a lot of maven configuration. |
@jnehlmeier If you follow The Maven Way™, An alternative is to rather go the webjars.org way of doing it, by producing a |
@tbroyer Ah I see, but then I would definitely go the JSZip way or are there any major drawbacks? GWT apps are not war files per definition. Standalone apps are probably not deployed to servlet containers and don't need to be a war and in a Maven multi module setup the client module don't have to be a war either. Server code could also be written in different languages, so I am not sure if a war file is the best solution. To me it looks like that a JSZip way is a bit more flexible. Only GWT apps created with GPE could maybe suffer from JSZip as they have client/shared/server code in a single project and a war is what you expect when switching to Maven and building the project. In that case we should maybe just encourage users that want to switch to Maven to split their single project into a multi module project as its IMHO best practice? Would it be possible to add some filtering to a jszip:unpack? That would support our scenario where we only want to unpack specific GWT compilation artifacts (GWT-RPC *.rpc, etc.) into our webapp/war module. |
Given the discussion on issue #8, I start to think that a WAR overlay is the least bad of our alternatives, given Maven's state of affair. I'm leaving this issue open to gather more feedback though. |
@tbroyer I tend to agree with your view on the war overlay solution as the least bad, given the alternatives considered so far:
In order to reduce possible failure modes and improve usability (by building on what's already known), I would prefer to stick with war overlays for now. By the way, I'd say a GWT app should not necessarily be limited to GWT compiler output. Host pages and CSS resources, which belong to the respective GWT app only, should really be packaged as part of that GWT app to reduce coupling between modules. (It's a different scenario of course, if a host page has other responsibilities, such as hosting multiple apps). My personal view is that semantic coupling, not the implementation technology, should be the primary factor of determining what goes into a package. Anyway, my impression is that if I'd like to have it that way, I could still get it by adding the following configuration to the GWT client module's
As regards development mode, I currently use a GWT run configuration in IntelliJ IDEA (on the client module only). The On a last note, now that the new |
Let's think about modules (not in the GWT sense) or projects. Currently, the The problem I have with including anything else in the archive (such as some If you want something "standalone", then use GWT's own way of embedding static resources to be copied as-is: the To answer a couple of your other points (if you have further comments, please contact me by mail, or possibly open issues; let's not hijack this issue):
|
jszip hasn't been updated in 2 years; closing. |
…or should there be a
gwt:unpack
mojo?I'd like it if
gwt-app
s could have the generated files at the root of the package and use a mapping to put them back into a subfolder in thewar
module, similar tojszip:unpack
. I'm not sure there's a real added value though; i.e. is it worth the trouble for users of the plugin?JSZip: http://jszip.org/
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: