After giving it some more thought, I think interpolating the <id> is less disruptive than a new attribute. I am sure once POM 5 exists, there will be an official way.
Lastly, I am not not a fan of the "step-#" naming because it's a prefix but it is more descriptive; I would prefer to just simply allow the developer to suffix with a -# (dash number). Thoughts on which nomenclature is better? Cheers, Paul On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Igor Fedorenko <i...@ifedorenko.com> wrote: > I am not sure xml attributes are necessary a hack. Whether to put > before/after hints into xml element or attribute is really a matter of > taste, imho. > > I don't want to restart the whole "pom v 5" discussion again, but I was > under impression we agreed to preserve format published to maven > repository but allow changes in the format used during the build. Which > I believe implies that entire <build> section (or whaterver pom 5 will > end up using to represent build configuration) will be stripped out of > pom.xml files before they are deployed. > > So I think it is okay to use xml attributes to represent before/after > hints today and we can decide to change this to something else when we > get to pom 5. > > -- > Regards, > Igor > > > On 2014-06-04, 11:39, Paul Benedict wrote: > >> Thanks for your reply Jason. >> >> So it seems there are some possibilities for this ticket: either >> interpreting the <id> to infer order (the patch) or stuffing this into an >> attribute (per Igor). Regarding the latter, the attribute route is clearly >> to avoid adding a new POM element, but aren't both a bit "hackish"? The >> desired solution, I think, would be to make this a POM element, but past >> discussions inform me that's clearly off the table. >> >> >> Cheers, >> Paul >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@takari.io> wrote: >> >> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
