On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 08:47, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> I can deal with our plugins, but for the sake of a sane 1.0 release and
> something we can easily document I think this is the right way to go. I
> added the cross plugin access at one point for Vincent and I admittedly
> did it to quickly. But I
On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 03:18, Rafal Krzewski wrote:
> Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> > There will no longer be any namespace confusion as what's in a plugin is
> > completely separate. You could have the same property in many plugins
> > now and the value for the particular plugin will stay attached to t
On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 02:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If we don't have to rejig the properties for all the plugins, I'm +1 on
> the new dotted syntax.
The standard syntax would be more namespace sensible in the form of:
${plugins.antlr.srcDir}
And without changing the names you can't do it wi
Jason van Zyl wrote:
> There will no longer be any namespace confusion as what's in a plugin is
> completely separate. You could have the same property in many plugins
> now and the value for the particular plugin will stay attached to the
> plugin it belongs too. There are now separate classloade
If we don't have to rejig the properties for all the plugins, I'm +1 on
the new dotted syntax.
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Blog: http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/
Work: http://www.multitask.com.au
Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 26/06/2003 10:31:01 PM:
> On T
On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 17:46, Brett Porter wrote:
> I thought Vincent was saying that he thought plugin="xdoc" name="maven.dest.dir" value="dest.dir"/> was better to
> avoid namespace confusion?
There will no longer be any namespace confusion as what's in a plugin is
completely separate. You coul
I thought Vincent was saying that he thought was better to
avoid namespace confusion?
In that case I agree, because I'm not sure how Velocity is going to tell
between plugins, antlr and "src.dir", without thinking it needs to do
getSrc().getDir(), but it might work. IT also rules out having ".
On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 01:34, Vincent Massol wrote:
> I like the second form personally although I agree it is less
> understandable than the first. Thus, I would think the first is probably
> the best to avoid namespace confusion.
Ok, so you are in favour of the ${foo} form for both. Cool, I'll
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 26 June 2003 04:07
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: Standard method for retrieving plugin properties in
plugins
>
> On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 20:47, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> >
out of these I prefer
as you can probably do better error reporting and it is clearer what is
the plugin and what is the property.
- Brett
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 20:47, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Another thing would probably be nice to standardize is the inter-plugin
property ret
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:07 pm, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>
> so that would extract the 'maven.dest.dir' property from the xdoc plugin
> and place the value in 'dest.dir' for use in the current context.
Sounds good. But it may be better to name the attributes more according to
what they do or else yo
Jason,
Are you saying ${plugin.getProperty('maven.compile.target')} for the
current plugin, and
${pom.getPlugin('maven-foo-plugin').getProperty('bar')} for another plugin?
Sounds good to me.
That leaves ant propertys and j:set values to be the only ones
referenced as ${foo.bar}, right?
Cheer
On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 20:47, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just glancing around the plugins I see a few different ways that people
> are using to reference plugin properties that belong to the plugin in
> question. For example inside the java plugin there are references like:
>
> ${maven.compile
13 matches
Mail list logo
