2011/11/3 christofer.d...@c-ware.de :
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I am currently working on a way to report common configuration problems of
> the flexmojos plugin. The reason for this ist hat about 99% of the problems
> users on the mailinglist are having are all related to mis-configurations.
> 90% of those
Well ... thanks for the support ... think I'll have to go reading the Source :-(
[ C h r i s t o f e r D u t z ]
C-Ware IT-Service
Inhaber
Dipl. Inf. Christofer Dutz
Karlstraße. 104, 64285 Darmstadt
fon: 0 61 51 / 27315 - 61
fax: 0 61 51 / 27315 - 64
mobil: 0171 / 7 444 2 33
email: christof
On 4 November 2011 13:41, Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
> On 15:35:35 Friday 04 November 2011 Jesse McConnell wrote:
>> Perhaps they don't have to make a formal eclipse release, but so long
>> as they have parallel ip in place they should be able make a milestone
>> or release candidate release. The
On 15:35:35 Friday 04 November 2011 Jesse McConnell wrote:
> Perhaps they don't have to make a formal eclipse release, but so long
> as they have parallel ip in place they should be able make a milestone
> or release candidate release. The formal eclipse 'release' isn't what
> we in maven lands co
Perhaps they don't have to make a formal eclipse release, but so long
as they have parallel ip in place they should be able make a milestone
or release candidate release. The formal eclipse 'release' isn't what
we in maven lands consider a release really, they consider a release
something that can
On 13:30:12 Friday 04 November 2011 Stephen Connolly wrote:
> On 4 November 2011 11:04, Mark Derricutt wrote:
> > If its stuck at the bottom of the pile for an unknown amount of time -
> > I'd REALLY love to see 3.0.4. ship out with the current non-eclipse
> > Aether.
> >
> > Leaving a broken Mav
On 13:04:06 Friday 04 November 2011 Stephen Connolly wrote:
> On 4 November 2011 10:22, Benjamin Bentmann
wrote:
> > David Jencks wrote:
> >> Another month went by any progress?
> >
> > The sources were checked into git according to parallel IP, awaiting full
> > legal approval. Some depende
to clarify what I mean, you generate a class that extends
AbstractMojo, has the required injection fields for all the
@parameters and has an execute method that passes through all the
injection fields and then invokes the required method.
On 4 November 2011 11:11, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
> Syntet
Syntetic bridging classes solves that issue and keeps 2.2.1 compat (as
2.0.x is JDK 1.4)
On 4 November 2011 11:09, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Things like below will need some changes in core, IMHO we need to be
> compliant with core 2.x and 3.x :
>
> @Goal(name="foo")
> public void doExec
On 4 November 2011 11:04, Mark Derricutt wrote:
> If its stuck at the bottom of the pile for an unknown amount of time - I'd
> REALLY love to see 3.0.4. ship out with the current non-eclipse Aether.
>
> Leaving a broken Maven out in the wild for what appears to be politics more
> than anything jus
Hello,
Things like below will need some changes in core, IMHO we need to be
compliant with core 2.x and 3.x :
@Goal(name="foo")
public void doExecuteGoal() {
// equiv of AbstractMojo.execute without requiring the interface
}
@Goal(name="bar")
public void doOtherExecuteGoal() {
+3
( why does every only +1 on these things - this aint Google folks! ).
Love the last example with multiple @Goal annotations on methods.
--
"Great artists are extremely selfish and arrogant things" — Steven Wilson,
Porcupine Tree
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> +1 t
On 4 November 2011 10:55, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
> Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
>> Any idea what's needed to prod the process along... never having been
>> involved at eclipse before, this seems like a rather long process with
>> no visibility (as far as I can see) as to what is taking place and
>>
If its stuck at the bottom of the pile for an unknown amount of time - I'd
REALLY love to see 3.0.4. ship out with the current non-eclipse Aether.
Leaving a broken Maven out in the wild for what appears to be politics more
than anything just continues to hurt the Maven name.
I was under the impre
Stephen Connolly wrote:
Any idea what's needed to prod the process along... never having been
involved at eclipse before, this seems like a rather long process with
no visibility (as far as I can see) as to what is taking place and
where the blockers are
Looking at Eclipse' IPZilla, which btw
+1 to Stephen's comment, that looks even better!
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
> added a comment
>
> On 3 November 2011 23:18,
On 4 November 2011 10:22, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
> David Jencks wrote:
>
>> Another month went by any progress?
>
> The sources were checked into git according to parallel IP, awaiting full
> legal approval. Some dependencies still await review [0], too.
>
Any idea what's needed to prod the
David Jencks wrote:
Another month went by any progress?
The sources were checked into git according to parallel IP, awaiting
full legal approval. Some dependencies still await review [0], too.
Benjamin
[0] http://www.eclipse.org/projects/ip_log.php?projectid=technology.aether
--
added a comment
On 3 November 2011 23:18, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I reworked on Java 5 Annotations for Plugins proposal started a while ago: [1]
>
> Before going deeper into code, I'd like to have some review of the proposed
> form of the tool. Any comment is welcome.
>
> Regards,
>
> Herv
Salut Hervé!
I developed a Maven plugin only once[1] but I would loved to use those
annotations instead of Javadoc.
The benefits I would have got are exactly the ones you described in
the Wiki - IMHO this work has to be part of a required innovation in
therms of simplification of plugin development
20 matches
Mail list logo
