-----------
>
> C:\>
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Rahul Limkar
> System Analyst,
> Pune
> Contact :- +91 020 66755948
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Schulte [mailto:[EMAIL PROTE
Pune
Contact :- +91 020 66755948
-Original Message-
From: Christian Schulte [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 12:14 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Default plugin execution id
Brian E. Fox wrote:
> I think we've gone way off the rails here. I see there&#
Brian E. Fox wrote:
> I think we've gone way off the rails here. I see there's a proposal but
> haven't reviewed it yet.
>
> The first portion of this discussion was rather small in scope:
> Currently default executions of plugins have a null id. The null is used
> to indicate the default config f
PM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: Default plugin execution id
>
> We need to split out the different executions somehow.
>
> If we use a sequence number:
> 1. How do I deterministically know what sequence number to use?
> 2. What happens when a newer version of the
ces, and this is a bigger
>> > problem for a 3.x timeframe. I think that something simple can cover
>> > 90%
>> > of the cases and be doable in 2.x
>> >
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Paul Gier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
&g
Well now you've crossed over to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3203
which is a separate issue imo.
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Connolly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 4:41 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Default plugin execution id
We
Message-
> From: Stephen Connolly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 4:27 PM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Cc: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: Default plugin execution id
>
> well you need to separate out the executions by phase in case somebo
gt; of the cases and be doable in 2.x
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Gier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 4:05 PM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: Default plugin execution id
>
> Yes, you're right, I think this is g
Again, why? It's not possible now so it's obviously working for most
cases today.
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Connolly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 4:27 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Cc: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Default plugin executio
008 4:05 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Default plugin execution id
Yes, you're right, I think this is getting more complicated that it
needs to be.
Either of these is fine with me:
default-lifecycle:goal
or
default-lifecycle:phase
Either of them should be pretty easy to implement, and pr
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 4:05 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Default plugin execution id
Yes, you're right, I think this is getting more complicated that it
needs to be.
Either of these is fine with me:
default-lifecycle:goal
or
default-lifecycle:phase
-1
Handling one offs from the command line is not what we want.
Executions embedded into the lifecycle are meant to be just that a way
to include many things you need in the lifecycle.
If you need something different on a per situation basis it should be
a plugin configuration that you ne
2008/11/10 Paul Gier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yes, you're right, I think this is getting more complicated that it needs
> to be.
> Either of these is fine with me:
> default-lifecycle:goal
-1
> or
> default-lifecycle:phase
+1
>
> Either of them should be pretty easy to implement, and pretty u
sage-
From: Paul Gier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 3:44 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Default plugin execution id
Stephen Connolly wrote:
2008/11/10 Paul Gier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
What about adding new syntax to the goal string? So that fr
2008/11/10 Paul Gier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Adding the phase to the ID doesn't prevent name conflicts, since you can
> have the same goal twice in the same phase. I would guess it's actually be
> more common to have a goal twice in the same phase vs. in different phases.
> So I think the goal n
.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Gier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 3:44 PM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: Default plugin execution id
>
> Stephen Connolly wrote:
> > 2008/11/10 Paul Gier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2008/11/10 Paul Gier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
>> 2008/11/10 Paul Gier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> Plus sequence number is non-deterministic. Also, you are forgetting...
>> this
>> is not the id of executions *defined within the pom* but it's the id of
>> executions *defined b
Developers List
Subject: Re: Default plugin execution id
Stephen Connolly wrote:
> 2008/11/10 Paul Gier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> What about adding new syntax to the goal string? So that from the
command
>> line you could write something like this to refer to s
I've updated the page to include my counter-proposal
2008/11/10 Paul Gier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I created a user proposal to hopefully clarify the issue and my proposed
> solution:
> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVENUSER/Default+Plugin+Execution+IDs
>
>
Stephen Connolly wrote:
2008/11/10 Paul Gier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
What about adding new syntax to the goal string? So that from the command
line you could write something like this to refer to specific execution
configs:
mvn eclipse:eclipse{execution-1}
or
mvn eclipse:eclipse{execution-2}
H
2008/11/10 Paul Gier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
>> 2008/11/10 Paul Gier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> What about adding new syntax to the goal string? So that from the
>>> command
>>> line you could write something like this to refer to specific execution
>>> configs:
>>>
>>> mv
Stephen Connolly wrote:
2008/11/10 Paul Gier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
What about adding new syntax to the goal string? So that from the command
line you could write something like this to refer to specific execution
configs:
mvn eclipse:eclipse{execution-1}
or
mvn eclipse:eclipse{execution-2}
H
2008/11/10 Paul Gier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What about adding new syntax to the goal string? So that from the command
> line you could write something like this to refer to specific execution
> configs:
>
> mvn eclipse:eclipse{execution-1}
> or
> mvn eclipse:eclipse{execution-2}
>
How would that
Fox wrote:
Yes, this is needed. I have a jira somewhere for it...
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3401
-Original Message-
From: Paul Gier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 07,
2008 3:46 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Default plugin execution id
Hi everyone
Christian Schulte wrote:
Stephen Connolly wrote:
AFAIK,
The execution id refers only to a specific plugin, and each execution can
only match a specific phase... so I don't see the need to tie the execution
to a goal name, neither to the plugin name...
What I see as bind important is if the plu
2008/11/10 Christian Schulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Stephen Connolly wrote:
> > So, how did we get here: the use case that triggered all of this is
> > specifying a different configuration for the maven-compiler-plugin when
> > executed during the test-compile phase (to allow unit tests to be
> com
Stephen Connolly wrote:
> Christian,
>
> Please do not take offense, but I think that you do not understand what is
> being discussed/proposed.
>
> Here is my understanding:
>
> Maven has the concept of a lifecycle. Each lifecycle consists of a sequence
> of phases. When you invoke Maven with a
2008/11/10 Stephen Connolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> 2008/11/10 Christian Schulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Stephen Connolly wrote:
>> > AFAIK,
>> >
>> > The execution id refers only to a specific plugin, and each execution
>> can
>> > only match a specific phase... so I don't see the need to tie t
2008/11/10 Christian Schulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Stephen Connolly wrote:
> > AFAIK,
> >
> > The execution id refers only to a specific plugin, and each execution can
> > only match a specific phase... so I don't see the need to tie the
> execution
> > to a goal name, neither to the plugin name..
Stephen Connolly wrote:
> AFAIK,
>
> The execution id refers only to a specific plugin, and each execution can
> only match a specific phase... so I don't see the need to tie the execution
> to a goal name, neither to the plugin name...
>
> What I see as bind important is if the plugin is bound t
Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
> Christian Schulte wrote:
>
>> Not having specified an execution id does not necessarily mean someone
>> did not care about it. It means someone explicitly referred to the
>> default execution.
>
> I disagree with this interpretation, mainly because I am not aware of
>
---Original Message-
> From: Benjamin Bentmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 6:27 AM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: Default plugin execution id
>
> Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> > I don't think anyone is generally going to type:
&
That's a bad example and what if you want to provide defaults for both?
-Original Message-
From: Benjamin Bentmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 6:27 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Default plugin execution id
Jason van Zyl wrote:
> I don
how about lifecycle:[packaging]:[phase]
e.g. lifecycle:jar:compile and lifecycle:jar:test-compile
this would have the side-effect that you might need to override both
lifecycle:jar:compile and lifecycle:war:compile to alter all compile
settings, but I see plusses to that too
Sent from my i
Jason van Zyl wrote:
I don't think anyone is generally going to type:
default-execution-id
As said before, I believe it's nice to distinguish executions of
different plugin goals to allow their separate configuration. So how
about appending the goal name like
default-execution-compile
Christian Schulte wrote:
Not having specified an execution id does not necessarily mean someone
did not care about it. It means someone explicitly referred to the
default execution.
I disagree with this interpretation, mainly because I am not aware of
any docs that would indicate this to the
Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
> However, given that POM snippets without execution id like
>
>
> foo
>
>run
>
>
>
> might not be uncommon, i.e. where one doesn't care about the execution
> id and simply relies on the schema-provided default value, it seems
> advisabl
Jason van Zyl wrote:
> I don't think anyone is generally going to type:
>
> default-execution-id
>
> It says what it is and if someone happens to look at the effective POM
> they will understand. It's also unlikely someone would actually use
> that in their own POMs.
>
Although not an apach
+1 here.
-Original Message-
From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 12:15 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Default plugin execution id
I don't think anyone is generally going to type:
default-execution-id
It says what it is a
I don't think anyone is generally going to type:
default-execution-id
It says what it is and if someone happens to look at the effective POM
they will understand. It's also unlikely someone would actually use
that in their own POMs.
On 8-Nov-08, at 2:23 AM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
Brett
Brett Porter wrote:
How about #groupId:artifactId:sequenceNumber.
What would be the sequenceNumber part? This kind of execution config is
surely an edge case but I would prefer the execution id to not be too
complex/cryptic (someday I might want to type it into the POM...).
It would be un
Christian Schulte wrote:
^
4.0.0
The identifier of this execution for labelling the goals during
the build, and for matching executions to merge during
inheritance.
If I got it right, one can
Brett Porter wrote:
> How about #groupId:artifactId:sequenceNumber.
>
> It would be unique to the POM.
>
^
4.0.0
The identifier of this execution for labelling the goals during
the build, and for matchi
How about #groupId:artifactId:sequenceNumber.
It would be unique to the POM.
On 07/11/2008, at 10:09 PM, Christian Schulte wrote:
Brian E. Fox wrote:
Definitely 2.1 and that way if there is a conflict, it's part of
moving
forward. Is there a name besides default that might be less likely to
Brian E. Fox wrote:
> Definitely 2.1 and that way if there is a conflict, it's part of moving
> forward. Is there a name besides default that might be less likely to
> conflict?
>
org.apache.maven/2.1 ?
--
Christian
-
To unsub
bject: Re: Default plugin execution id
Ok thanks, I attached a patch which is just a one line change to set the
execution id to "default" if nothing is specified.
It fixes the issue for me, but I guess the concern is that it could
change the
behaviour for anyone currently using an id
]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 3:46 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Default plugin execution id
Hi everyone,
I'd like to be able to configure the default execution of a plugin
within an
execution instead of doing it through the main plugin configuration. So
the
result
Yes, this is needed. I have a jira somewhere for it...
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3401
-Original Message-
From: Paul Gier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 3:46 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Default plugin execution id
Hi everyone,
I'd li
Hi everyone,
I'd like to be able to configure the default execution of a plugin within an
execution instead of doing it through the main plugin configuration. So the
result would look something like this:
org.apache.maven.plugins
maven-jar-plugin
default
49 matches
Mail list logo
