Artifact format: amp, SM or both?

[driesdeproost]

As-is the produced artifact is an amp. Do we want to publish a simple module artifact instead? or both?

This can have implications on the gradle project structure, as discussed in #2

[driesdeproost]

kerkhofsd 1 hour ago Member

There are two options to handle a shared code base:

Put shared code in a core jar and make other subprojects depend on this jar
Put shared code in a shared directory and include them as sourceSets in the other subprojects

Now we have a combination of the two?

a core.jar is build
but we don't use it in the other subprojects and just include the sourceSets.

@driesdeproost
driesdeproost 43 minutes ago Author Member

Yes, I think I'm missing a trick. I will clarify

I did this so the dependencies are detected by IntelliJ and a default dependency is available while developing.

The problem I had is that the jar needs to be compiled with different dependencies for different Alfresco versions.
So for option one, there should then be a differentiation in the jar task for example
for option two, development is hard as dependencies are not availble in java code in your IDE. Also running :amp on the root project will fail

But as said, I am probably just missing a tiny step that fixes all this
@kerkhofsd
kerkhofsd 11 minutes ago Member

As discussed: good for now, setup can be improved in later PR's.
@tgeens
tgeens 11 minutes ago Member

Please use (1), not (2).
@kerkhofsd
kerkhofsd 9 minutes ago Member

@tgeens
Only problem I might see with (1) is that's is not just a simple standalone jar anymore. (Thinking about building as a SM)
@tgeens
tgeens 6 minutes ago Member

if that's the goal, shadowjar is the proper way to fix that.

Importing a shared-source-folder in multiple projects using sourceSets was a very painful mess we just git rid of in DE ?
@tgeens
tgeens 5 minutes ago Member

See also: APIX development in an IDE is misery
@kerkhofsd
kerkhofsd 5 minutes ago Member

Correct