Mailing-List: contact dev-help@maven.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Maven Developers List" <dev@maven.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of eric.redmond@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.132.247 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=I6F0AVbGGUHAdzWKO/BAYxQQHt9KGVmVY980FThKkNp7sHWs8BorB0B0mp1g7p3XKKN1pQdcahSPQuRY8M3xfBEyEkiiEh7V3BHciNzP3Vp7nTXDOctG08uIHCZ7tajgbfR8pLAzMc0GeHeIv/iu8oGXEeCjvtzf/bY3O/yirzM=
Message-ID: <566271f30704040807u36a22ad5y5c7b2d952d58d8d9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:07:49 -0500
From: "Eric Redmond" <eric.redmond@gmail.com>
To: "Maven Developers List" <dev@maven.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [discuss] add validate/initialize to site lifecycle
In-Reply-To: <2BABBE7D2A66E04DB8A66A527D29927E25E1E8@intrepid.infinity.nu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_61833_30157766.1175699269320"
References: <2BABBE7D2A66E04DB8A66A527D29927E25E1DE@intrepid.infinity.nu>
	 <4613A71D.1090002@ukf.net>
	 <4479b0f70704040721v49f233fdh83d1ea24264b40f8@mail.gmail.com>
	 <2BABBE7D2A66E04DB8A66A527D29927E25E1E8@intrepid.infinity.nu>

------=_Part_61833_30157766.1175699269320
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

------=_Part_61833_30157766.1175699269320--