maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Maven 4.0.0
Date Mon, 06 Nov 2017 08:37:32 GMT
On Mon 6 Nov 2017 at 08:13, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Forgot a user wish feature: some progress logging somehow. On "big" project
> (actually on project logging a lot) you are easily lost on the progress,
> you know current module is X but you don't know anymore if it is 50% of the
> build or 5%. Having at least "module X / Y" would be helpful. IMO it is
> enough to log it with the module name:
>
> [INFO]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [INFO] Building Foo 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT
> [INFO]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [INFO] Module 10 / 100
>

Can you file a JIRA?

>
>
>
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau>
>
> 2017-11-05 22:27 GMT+01:00 Bernd Eckenfels <ecki@zusammenkunft.net>:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> >
> >
> > Adding annotations and processor as a compiletime dependency sounds like
> a
> > reasonable thing. It would however be cool if the JAR could describe
> which
> > package needs to go on the classpath and which is processor impl. (and
> > having a different artifact for runtime)
> >
> >
> >
> > Gruss
> >
> > Bernd
> >
> >
> >
> > *Von: *Mark Derricutt <mark@talios.com>
> > *Gesendet: *Sonntag, 5. November 2017 22:20
> > *An: *Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org>
> > *Betreff: *Re: Maven 4.0.0
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5 Nov 2017, at 10:42, Robert Scholte wrote:
> >
> > I would like to drop strict scopes in general and give plugins the
> > opportunity to depend on
> > specific scoped dependencies.
> >
> > How would this help with annotations tho? The main issue I'm facing is
> > having a standard m-c-p plugin definition in a parent ( or tile ) but
> > needing different annotation processors used per project. With the
> current
> > plugin, this means either listing them as standard dependencies and have
> > them auto-scanned, and pollute the compilation classpath, or list every
> > possible annotation processor dependency we may use in our projects in
> the
> > parent, which is less than ideal.
> >
> > I hope you are aware that modules already end up on the modulepath based
> > on the moduledescriptor(s). So I don't see the need for this scope.
> (unless
> > you have this wish that in the end Maven will create the module
> descriptor
> > based on this, but I still think we shouldn't do that)
> >
> > I remembered reading something about this, and assumed it was the case if
> > there was a module-info.class, but what if its a standard jar with an
> > Automatic-Module-Name header? Does that fall into the module path or
> > classpath? Having control for this case may be useful.
> >
> > I recognize this wish. The best solution is to make the dependency
> > optional.
> >
> > The problem with this is that the dependency is still on the classpath
> for
> > say surefire, which can influence behaviour.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > "The ease with which a change can be implemented has no relevance at all
> > to whether it is the right change for the (Java) Platform for all time."
> —
> > Mark Reinhold.
> >
> > Mark Derricutt
> > http://www.theoryinpractice.net
> > http://www.chaliceofblood.net
> > http://plus.google.com/+MarkDerricutt
> > http://twitter.com/talios
> > http://facebook.com/mderricutt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
> >
>
-- 
Sent from my phone

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