Skip to content

Provide an implicit layer for buildpack contributions #19771

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

Closed
philwebb opened this issue Jan 16, 2020 · 4 comments
Closed

Provide an implicit layer for buildpack contributions #19771

philwebb opened this issue Jan 16, 2020 · 4 comments
Labels
status: declined A suggestion or change that we don't feel we should currently apply type: enhancement A general enhancement

Comments

@philwebb
Copy link
Member

We should define a special layer name that's reserved for external contributions to an unpacked jar. I think the current code will already support any additional layer dropped into BOOT-INF/layers but it might be better to have a specific folder (e.g. BOOT-INF/ext) or a reserved layer name.

@philwebb philwebb added the type: enhancement A general enhancement label Jan 16, 2020
@philwebb philwebb added this to the 2.2.x milestone Jan 16, 2020
@snicoll
Copy link
Member

snicoll commented Jan 16, 2020

A bit curious about that one and how you intend to handle layers ordering.

@philwebb philwebb modified the milestones: 2.2.x, 2.3.x Jan 21, 2020
@snicoll
Copy link
Member

snicoll commented Feb 21, 2020

We discussed it today and weren't sure what the original intention is. @philwebb can you please clarify?

@wilkinsona
Copy link
Member

We can't think of a reason for the application to express an opinion about the layers used by the buildpack to add things to the classpath. The buildpack can make the decision while building the image, as it currently does with the launcher classes, for example.

@wilkinsona wilkinsona removed this from the 2.3.x milestone Mar 6, 2020
@wilkinsona wilkinsona added the status: declined A suggestion or change that we don't feel we should currently apply label Mar 6, 2020
@philwebb
Copy link
Member Author

The original intent was just to reserve a folder name for the buildpack to use. I was worried that the user might accidentally pick the same name as the buildpack wanted and the entire thing would break. Now that we've reverted to the standard layout, there's no need for this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
status: declined A suggestion or change that we don't feel we should currently apply type: enhancement A general enhancement
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants