> Why don't we just fix maven-plugin-plugin, or switch to annotations... > Anything else is just a stop gap
Hmm. Yes. Is there an issue for this and/or some good reason why this hasn't been done ? I also see that the significant bit (extracting documentation/attributes to base class), actually is the same in both cases, and shade vs plugin-plugin will only be a matter of a couple of lines in a pom. Any takers for fixing the plugin-plugin ? I have about 50 other issues I want to fix in surefire before doing that. Kristian on., 29.12.2010 kl. 11.19 +0000, skrev Stephen Connolly: > Why don't we just fix maven-plugin-plugin, or switch to annotations... > Anything else is just a stop gap > > - Stephen > > --- > Sent from my Android phone, so random spelling mistakes, random nonsense > words and other nonsense are a direct result of using swype to type on the > screen > On 29 Dec 2010 10:51, "Kristian Rosenvold" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > The surefire/failsafe plugins share a common module "surefire-common", > > with an AbstractSurefireMojo and an interface that the specific > > implementations need to implement (Surefire/Failsafe). > > > > We had this discussion earlier, and because the mojo > > annotations have to be in the same jar file as the plugin itself > > all the @ annotations are duplicated across the two plugins. > > > > There is a *lot* of javadoc and properties duplicated at the moment, and > > unless someone has a better solution I'd be inclined to move all > > the common ones to the base-class and shade the base class into the > > jar files for both plugins. > > > > WDYT ? > > > > Kristian > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
