maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John Casey" <casey.joh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [discuss] add validate/initialize to site lifecycle
Date Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:07:13 GMT
I'd imagine that you would use something like 'site#initialize', unless you
wanted to use the default lifecycle, in which case you'd just use
'initialize'. Then, I'm not sure whether you'd get into <phases/>. You'd
probably have to, particularly if you assume that 'initialize' ==
'default#initialize'.

BTW, I'm +1 for calling the default lifecycle the 'build' lifecycle...since
it's the only time that you're really building the project. I also think
that we should flesh out the other lifecycles to mimic the
main/default/build lifecycle, for occasions where you need to do
initialization/etc. tasks...I mean, beyond just initialize/validate, where
it makes sense.

Brian, either way, this looks like something to put in the Maven 2.1 design
section:

http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Maven+2.1+Design+Documents

If you put together a relatively complete proposal for implementing this, we
can start discussing it and see about putting it on the road map for
2.1-alpha-N.

Thanks,

john

On 4/4/07, Eric Redmond <eric.redmond@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How would you know a specific lifecycle then? Something like
> default#initialize, versus site#initialize? I'm also not against it, just
> curious if people were open to changing the command line. I kind of like
> that idea, actually.
>
> On 4/4/07, John Casey <casey.john.d@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > In any case, you're talking about new functionality...wouldn't it be
> > better
> > to redesign the lifecycle subsystem somehow so phase names don't have to
> > be
> > globally unique? (I'm not saying that would be simple, but I'm guessing
> it
> > would be less complex for the user.)
> >
> > -john
> >
> > On 4/4/07, Brian E. Fox <brianf@reply.infinity.nu> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think this phase couldn't be invoked from the cli because obviously
> it
> > > wouldn't know which to pick.
> > >
> > > An alternative solution to all this would be to allow @phase to accept
> > > multiples and allow a single execution to be bound to multpile phases.
> > > Then we could bind to validate,pre-site.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Eric Redmond [mailto:eric.redmond@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 11:08 AM
> > > To: Maven Developers List
> > > Subject: Re: [discuss] add validate/initialize to site lifecycle
> > >
> > > How would this phase work, in a practical manner? If someone runs the
> > > phase, which lifecycle gets executed? Or are you proposing a phase
> that
> > > cannot be explicitly called... like some sort of phase interface?
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > > On 4/4/07, Brian E. Fox <brianf@reply.infinity.nu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Eric Redmond
> > > http://codehaus.org/~eredmond
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Eric Redmond
> http://codehaus.org/~eredmond
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message