Yes, I do think plugins should have some sort of "ordinal" value associated to them. However, I am not sure if I like the proposed patch because it infers the order out of the plugin's <id> attribute (ex: step1, step2). Certainly such a feature could work, but it hits that wall in Maven development land: no one wants/can add new elements to the POM. Ideally, there would be another element, like <order>, to control this.
Cheers, Paul On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Igor Fedorenko <i...@ifedorenko.com> wrote: > I haven't looked at the patch, but I know at least one case when it'd be > nice to have explicit control over execution order within a build phase. > > Lets say you have two plugins, plugin-a with two goals a1 and a2, and > plugin-b with goal b1. It is currently not possible to express the > following execution order > > plugin-a:a1 > plugin-b:b1 > plugin-a:a2 > > Pack200 normalization, jar singing and pack200 packing during tycho > build is real-world example where I had to artificially split pack200 > normalization and pack goals between two plugins to workaround this > limitation. > > -- > Regards, > Igor > > > On 2014-06-04, 9:57, Paul Benedict wrote: > >> Anyone have thoughts on this ticket? There is a submitted patch, as the >> last comment says -- it's part of another ticket that was marked as >> duplicate. >> >> Though, I am a bit confused. I thought plugin execution was already >> defined >> by the sequential order listed in the POM. Am I incorrect? If so, I still >> don't know if that's "good enough" when using POM inheritance. >> >> Cheers, >> Paul >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
