maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Brian E. Fox" <bri...@reply.infinity.nu>
Subject RE: [discuss] add validate/initialize to site lifecycle
Date Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:33:39 GMT
Right, so we're looking at a 2.1+ thing here. Adding them but changing
the name defeats the whole purpose. Thanks for the info. 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Casey [mailto:casey.john.d@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 10:21 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [discuss] add validate/initialize to site lifecycle

Max is right, if you add these phases to the site lifecycle (fine by me,
I suppose), they'll have to have different names. This is really
unfortunate, but that's the only way they can be incorporated into
2.0.x, or 2.1 (without some redesign).

-john

On 4/4/07, Max Bowsher <maxb1@ukf.net> wrote:
>
> Brian E. Fox wrote:
> > As Jerome pointed out earlier today on the enforcer thread, it would

> > be nice to be able to bind some plugins like the enforcer to a phase

> > that affects both default and site. After all, if you don't want to 
> > support some Maven/Jdk/Os/other version, chances are that applies to

> > sites and reports as well (especially since they might fork to 
> > compile aka cobertura etc).
> >
> >
> >
> > Is there any drawback to adding one or both of those to the 
> > lifecycle, and if so, what about a new one for both? (although I 
> > suspect this is what validate was really intended for)
>
> Maven seems to require that phases be globally unique across all 
> lifecycles. DefaultLifecycleExecutor specifically tests for this and 
> throws a LifecycleExecutionException if a violation is detected.
>
> Max.
>
>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org


Mime
View raw message