maven-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hervé BOUTEMY <>
Subject Re: Switching Lifecycles on other things than packaging
Date Sat, 06 Jul 2013 06:50:39 GMT
I think there are some little inconsistencies in vocabulary, causing wrong 

there are 3 lifecycles: default, clean and site [1]

and packaging selects default plugin bindings for default lifecycle [2]

For the moment, I didn't dig sufficiently into everything to have every answers 
and really do what I will explain, but IIUC, if you define a new phase in a new 
lifecycle, you should be able to inject a new lifecycle completely independent 
from packaging
then plugin bindings can either be defined in the lifecycle, like it is done in 
site and clean lifecycles, or by packaging, like it is done with default 

this analysis is for the moment theoretical, based on conclusion I made while 
documenting lifecycles and plugin bindigs, but seems rather logical (and 
contrary to what we understand from historical ways of taliking of lifecycle 
when we talk about default plugin bindings, probably because clean and site 
lifecycles come directly with their plugin bindings)





Le samedi 6 juillet 2013 15:46:24 Barrie Treloar a écrit :
> On 6 July 2013 15:39, Mirko Friedenhagen <> wrote:
> > Hello there,
> > 
> > is there a way to switch to a different lifecycle depending on e.g. a
> > path/file etc? Or is the agreed way to just have another packaging?
> The lifecycle for the pom comes from packaging.
> The plugins that pom declares then attach themselves to the lifecycle
> stages.
> You can always use a "pom" packaging to essentiallly do nothing, and
> have all the work done via plugins.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message