Just to summarize: I'm +1 to add a new setter tag and make it available for plugins. I may even be able to add it sometime tomorrow if others Maven committers also agree.
I think we have 2 solutions: 1/ We deprecate pluginVar, and create a new tag called something like: getPluginVar. We add another new setPluginVar tag 2/ We add an "action" attribute to the existing pluginVar tag, with 2 valid actions: "set" | "get". "get" being the default. I prefer 1. You? Thanks -Vincent > -----Original Message----- > From: Vincent Massol [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 22 April 2004 10:41 > To: 'Maven Developers List' > Subject: RE: [Q] Setting a property so that it's visible from another > plugin > > Ok, I was forgetting that you don't have to upgrade to a newer version > of the plugins... :-) > > It might still be a good idea to have a core maven plugin containing for > example the jelly tags so that previous users can also upgrade to newer > versions of the plugins. > > In my case at work, we are using beta 10. We want to move to rc2 and we > have started the migration even before rc2 was out (we started about 2 > months ago I think). We're still not done. Why? Because the build people > are busy with other stuff to fix (like the reactor not working for us on > Solaris, etc) and we have only a small number of people dedicated to the > build system and with enough knowledge (2.5 persons). Now, we would also > like to move to a newer version of the checkstyle plugin because it will > allow us to incorporate our custom checks in the build. So we tried > using the latest checkstyle plugin with beta 10. It fails because of > some change in the xdoc plugin. We haven't followed it further and are > instead focusing on upgrading to rc2. Maybe upgrading the xdoc plugin > would have been enough but then this one has moved quite a lot and we > will probably have other problems. > > But I do agree with you Brett. Please accept my apologies. I had > forgotten about the possibility of not upgrading one's own plugins... > :-) > > -Vincent > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 22 April 2004 09:04 > > To: 'Maven Developers List' > > Subject: RE: [Q] Setting a property so that it's visible from another > > plugin > > > > > production and you just simply can't break them completely, > > > even though it's a beta or rc... :-) > > > > You don't have to upgrade either. > > > > > At least, we should make an attempt not to break them. For > > > > Have I broken anything since rc1 that hasn't been fixed? My goal was > 100% > > compatibility and I've at least gotten that at work. The 2 things that > > broke > > in RC2 have been fixed in RC3 and won't happen again. > > > > > example, we could instead create a jelly taglib. This taglib > > > we could check whether such class exists. If it does, use it. > > > If not, use some jelly to set the property. > > > > Ok, so we add such a tag to RC3 and use it in all the plugins. Wait a > > second... None of them work with RC2 any more! Isn't that exactly what > you > > were trying to prevent? :D > > > > Realistically, nobody would want to stay on RC2 or less when 1.0 is > out, > > because it is backwards compatible, but its got a whole load of > bugfixes. > > There's no point wasting time to support it at that level. Now that we > are > > close to a release of 1.0 and have applied enough polish to make > backwards > > compatibility achievable, we definitely should strive to do so. > > > > > Alternatively we could simply provide a patch for versions < > > > rc3 in the form of a jar to drop in one's own mavenhome/lib > > > for example. > > > > It's called maven-1.0-rc3.tar.gz. If you are replacing maven.jar > that's > > what > > you've got anyway (Except with newer plugins). > > > > > It's more complex for us to manage but we should acknowledge > > > that some people have been using maven in production for some > > > time and they may not be able to switch quickly from, say, > > > beta 10 to rc3. > > > > I agree with you in principle but I've got no idea what you are > actually > > talking about in context (we were talking about plugins using a new > tag - > > you can't introduce a compatibility layer in the plugin really). > > > > If people want to stay on beta-10, that's their choice. I did so with > -7 > > for > > until -10 because it was moving too much. They'll just miss out on the > new > > plugin changes and that's also their choice. It's ridiculous that we > > attempt > > to support something that old with the limited resources we have > available > > to work on 1.0. > > > > I think everyone still on b10 is waiting for 1.0 before making their > > changes > > for exactly this reason. > > > > - Brett > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
