Yes, thanks. You've send me back to the drawing board... -Chris
Sent from my iPhone On 28/09/2012, at 12:23 AM, Sascha Vogt <[email protected]> wrote: > First of all, thank you very much for the explanation. I wasn't aware of > that up to know. Will definitely look into a different solution. > Nevertheless I want to understand a bit more to evaluate possible ways > to go. > > Am 27.09.2012 16:06, schrieb Jörg Schaible: >>> Am 27.09.2012 15:07, schrieb Jörg Schaible: >>>> Sascha Vogt wrote: >>> The idea was to have one Mojo extend another Mojo. >> In M2, it is simply not reliable and should therefore never be done. > Ok, for M2 the stuff we did is bad :) For now let's concentrate on M3 > >>> There is also a >>> maven-inherit-plugin out there >>> (https://github.com/ops4j/org.ops4j.pax.construct/tree/master/maven- >> inherit-plugin) >>> which suffers from the same issue. >> >> Yes, I complained about that before. >> >>> What do you mean by different classloader model? >> >> M3 uses isolated classloaders for the individual plugins. > So with the isolated classloaders the extension of a plugin could/should > work as expected (aka even if there are multiple different versions > referenced)? Or do you mean that in M3 if I extend plugin a, my plugin > shouldn't see classes from plugin a? > > Greetings > -Sascha- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
