maven-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Tran <dant...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Controlling order of plugin execution
Date Wed, 04 Jun 2014 19:16:10 GMT
@Jim,

Does my suggestion work for you?

@Stephen

you statement is confusing, are you suggesting to combine a bunch of mojo
executions in one plugin?

-D


On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Jim Garrison <jim.garrison@nwea.org> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Connolly [mailto:stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 9:08 AM
> > To: Maven Users List
> > Subject: Re: Controlling order of plugin execution
> >
> > That's usually a sign that you have wandered off The Maven Way™
> >
> > There are ways back onto the blessed path... they typically involve
> > writing
> > a plugin
> >
> >
> > On 4 June 2014 16:47, jhgnwea <jim.garrison@nwea.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Paul Benedict wrote
> > > > I agree with Dan. Last I check, IIRC, the order of operations of
> > plugins
> > > > is
> > > > defined by their sequential order in the POM. However, I also find
> > this a
> > > > bit problematic with inheritance -- I don't know off the top of my
> > head
> > > > what happens then.
> > >
> > > Ordering applies only for executions of a single plugin.  If you
> > need to
> > > interleave executions of two or more plugins you're out of luck.
> > Say you
> > > have two plugins, exec-maven and maven-sql, and want to run
> > >
> > >     exec-maven A1
> > >     maven-sql B1
> > >     exec-maven A2
> > >     maven-sql B2
> > >
> > > A1 and A2 will run in that order, and (B1, B2) will be ordered, but
> > you
> > > can't control which set (A or B) runs first without horribly abusing
> > the
> > > phase bindings.  And, if you have a more complex sequence with 3
> > plugins
> > > and multiple executions of each, there aren't enough available
> > phases to
> > > successfully order everything.
> > >
> > > It should be possible to bind multiple plugin executions, of
> > DIFFERENT
> > > plugins, to a single phase and deterministically specify the
> > execution
> > > order.
>
> Sorry, I disagree.  One alternative is to use antrun, but that seems like
> going backwards.  I'm really curious why there's a strong philosophical
> objection to requesting this enhancement.
>
> Is it unreasonable to suggest that "The Maven Way" is not perfect and
> might need some adjustments to handle common use-cases the original
> designers didn't foresee?
>
> Is my goal of using Maven to automate CI/CD, which can involve configuring
> external resources by running various plugins in a specific sequence,
> somehow in violation of "the Maven way"?
>
> Consider the phrase "...you have wandered off The Maven Way™".  I can't
> tell if you intended this ironically or seriously.  If it's the latter, it
> seems like you're saying is "Maven is perfect. If Maven doesn't handle your
> use-case, then your use-case is invalid".  Is that true?
>

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