I actually think the attributes are perfectly fine and won't interfere with anything. The attributes were always intended to be metadata about the elements and I think the use of instructing the core about how to order the executions falls into that category of use.
On Jun 5, 2014, at 9:52 AM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 >> >> Thanks, Jason ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl http://twitter.com/takari_io --------------------------------------------------------- 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
