I'm opposed to random creation of a DAG for executions across all the phases. This just creates a giant mess. That said _within_ a given phase if there was a topological sorting of executions where one execution can state that it depends on another I think is reasonable. Definitive ordering within a phase, I think, is useful.
On Jun 4, 2014, at 10:22 AM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > I find that solution interesting because, in a way, it kind of returns us > to the days of Maven 1.x where you can run things pre/post goal. I am > pretty sure Jason wanted to get rid of that perspective with this 2.x > design, but maybe things are coming full circle? > > > Cheers, > Paul > > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Igor Fedorenko <i...@ifedorenko.com> wrote: > >> Yes, I was also thinking before/after as a way to solve this. We can >> probably use xml attributes without breaking compat with artifact >> consumers, so I think this can be done in Maven 3.x. >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Igor >> >> >> On 2014-06-04, 10:09, Robert Scholte wrote: >> >>> Hi Paul, >>> >>> that's my understanding as well. >>> But even in a single pom you can have issues. >>> Consider 2 plugins, with both 2 goals and you want to run it like >>> >>> (phase=pre-integration-test) >>> pluginA:preSomething >>> pluginB:preStuff >>> >>> (phase=post-integration-test) >>> pluginB:postStuff >>> pluginA:postSomething >>> >>> Since plugins should be unique within the build-section, it's not >>> possible to have a clean solution for this. >>> >>> Instead of the step-X solution of MNG-4727 I think you should be able to >>> run it before or after a specified goal. >>> We could think of using a convention for the execution-id, or define a >>> new element in the pom-5.0.0 >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> Robert >>> >>> >>> Op Wed, 04 Jun 2014 15:57:08 +0200 schreef Paul Benedict >>> <pbened...@apache.org>: >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> >> Thanks, Jason ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl http://twitter.com/takari_io --------------------------------------------------------- A language that doesn’t affect the way you think about programming is not worth knowing. -- Alan Perlis
