maven-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wendell Beckwith <wbeckw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [m2] reasons for sticking with maven
Date Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:46:58 GMT
Just for clarification are you suggesting that a plugin that needs to
execute a java process should be designed as an ant script, and the plugin
would simply pass parameters to the ant script? I ask because I don't see
how this is less maintenance than my current plugin that provides
intelligent defaults in the mojo and just needs to pass theses parameters
along with any the user changed to the java process. Whenever there are
plugin changes, I still go to the mojo in my design or an ant script in your
design, correct?

Wb


On 9/20/05, John Casey <jdcasey@commonjava.org> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I've actually done something just like this in the past, in order to
> call a Make-based build. IMO, you want to wrap a command line call in a
> plugin, to formalize the parameters - required and optional - which
> constitutes a valid invocation of that executable. Otherwise, it's prone
> to breaking, misuse, and cut-and-paste maintenance style. In short, it
> isn't robust, and doesn't scale well. Anything where execution logic is
> embedded in the POM will suffer from this, IMO - including the antrun
> and execute plugins in the mojos project. A better solution for Ant
> would be to build the plugin around the Ant script/scriptlet, and bundle
> that script into the plugin jar...then parameterize the input
> configuration. Then, the script can climb the maturity curve, and is
> truly reused with a single point of maintenance.
>
> - -john
>
> Vincent Massol wrote:
> |
> |>-----Original Message-----
> |>From: Wendell Beckwith [mailto:wbeckwith@gmail.com]
> |>Sent: mardi 20 septembre 2005 19:15
> |>To: Maven Users List
> |>Subject: Re: [m2] reasons for sticking with maven
> |>
> |>John is basically stating the very thing that I'm against in the
> statement
> |>below. I have a 3rd party command line utility from
> |>www.agitar.com <http://www.agitar.com><http://www.agitar.com>,
> |>that basically does unit tests against our code. I want to write (and
> have
> |>started writing) an M2 plugin to execute the java command line for the
> |>agitation process from my plugin. All I need now to complete my plugin
> |>besides more hours in a day is a plugin that will allow me to execute a
> |>java
> |>command line. Now my plugin will integrate with the maven lifecycle
> during
> |>the test phase. However, first I'm told to use the maven-execute-plugin
> |>and
> |>then another dev states that it's bad and wants to see it eliminated,
> I'm
> |>left thinking WTF!? This *helps* me adopt maven and the process, not
> |>hinders
> |>it. My whole purpose for writing the plugin was so that I could make the
> |>plugin once and the other groups here and else where since I would open
> |>source it would be able to reuse it. Is this not what maven is for?
> |
> |
> | Just to muddy the waters: why don't you use commons-exec from your
> plugin's
> | java code to execute your process?
> |
> | [snip]
> |
> | Thanks
> | -Vincent
> |
> |
> | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> | To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> | For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
> |
> |
> |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFDMEdFK3h2CZwO/4URAjLaAKCo3sOGgRHJYg0nTR66E38EUaxN9wCfRY9m
> 3JIbhwsALTmuwn5OB/7gG9k=
> =WOfH
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
>
>

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