> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 26 June 2003 04:07
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: Standard method for retrieving plugin properties in
plugins
>
> On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 20:47, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Just glancing around the plugins I see a few different ways that
people
> > are using to reference plugin properties that belong to the plugin
in
> > question. For example inside the java plugin there are references
like:
> >
> > ${maven.compile.target}
> > ${context.getVariable('maven.compile.fork'}
> >
> > and in some other plugins:
> >
> > ${pom.getPluginContext('maven-foo-plugin').getVariable('bar')}
> >
> > Which is only really needed if you're trying to get hold of a
property
> > for in another plugin.
> >
> > This is something else I would like to standardize and with the
current
> > refactoring something like:
> >
> > ${plugin.getProperty('maven.compile.target')}
> >
> > would work or we could simply do the
> >
> > ${maven.compile.target}
> >
> > which is not clear as to where the property comes is used in some
> > places.
Why is not clear? Each plugin has its context, right? So it can only
come from the plugin context, no? I view it as a short form of
${plugin.getProperty(...
But it's much shorter to read and write which leads to clearer code.
> >
> > I am in favour in the first form as it's perfectly clear where the
value
> > comes from and is what I would like to use in the doco.
>
> Another thing would probably be nice to standardize is the
inter-plugin
> property retrieval. Bob's thought is a tag that we could use,
something
> like:
>
> <plugin-property plugin="xdoc" name="maven.dest.dir"
value="dest.dir"/>
>
> so that would extract the 'maven.dest.dir' property from the xdoc
plugin
> and place the value in 'dest.dir' for use in the current context.
>
> The other we could try because jexl is basically velocity is place
some
> maps in the context so we could do something like:
>
> ${plugins.xdoc.maven.dest.dir}
>
> Any preferences?
The first form is more explicit but it forces you to go through an extra
step of storing the property in yet another property...
I like the second form personally although I agree it is less
understandable than the first. Thus, I would think the first is probably
the best to avoid namespace confusion.
-Vincent
>
> --
> jvz.
>
> Jason van Zyl
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://tambora.zenplex.org
>
> In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
> and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.
>
> -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
