On Sat 4 Jul 2020 at 16:54, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Le sam. 4 juil. 2020 à 16:38, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> > On Sat 4 Jul 2020 at 10:21, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Well, there are two points I'd like to emphasis:
> > >
> > > 1. I dont think we should wait for 2 majors to get that as a feature,
> > would
> > > be too late IMHO
> >
> >
> > Well does my dynamic phases PR do what you need?
> >
>
> Partly if you think to priority one, it moves the issue a bit further due
> to priority usage which is not great in practice compare to names +
> requires to use 100, 200 etc to be able to inject plugin between two others
> in children with the project becoming more complex. Think we must have an
> explicit control here even with complex hierarchies.
If you need that much control then you’re doing something wrong.
How often do you need more than 3-4 plugin executions in strict ordered
succession?
That sounds like a dedicated plugin use case
>
>
>
> >
> > > 2. Pom model is based on inheritance whereas years showed composition
> and
> > > reuse is saner so IMHO it does not belong to pom but .mvn
> >
> >
> > Your proposal would only work if all projects shared the same packaging
> as
> > Hervé pointed out that the lifecycle is pulled in based on packaging.
> >
>
> No cause you define the packaging to use in the pom already - since maven
> 2 IIRC - so you can define as much packagings as you want in .mvn. To be
> concrete, it just enables to have an exploded extension in the project
> instead of requiring it to be packaged as a jar. Does not reinvent the
> wheel ;).
>
>
> > What you probably want is .mvn/${packaging}/lifecycle.xml so you can
> > override custom
> >
> > A bug you may encounter is where phase names are not common across the
> > reactor
> >
>
> Yep, build/extension must enforce common checkpoints (package, install,
> deploy out of my head) for all modules. Not a big deal if validated during
> initialize phase I think.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Le sam. 4 juil. 2020 à 10:19, Robert Scholte <rfscho...@apache.org> a
> > > écrit :
> > >
> > > > Stephen had an idea for it in Model 5.0.0[1], and IIRC I still had my
> > > > concerns.
> > > > It is still a draft with a lot of ideas, that hasn't really been
> > > discussed
> > > > yet, because it was still out of reach.
> > > > However, we're getting closer
> > > >
> > > > Robert
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/POM+Model+Version+5.0.0#POMModelVersion5.0.0-%3Cproject%3Eelement
> > > > On 4-7-2020 09:03:08, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > I agree I mixed both in my explanation....cause they only make sense
> > > > together for a build as shown by the pre/post recurrent request which
> > > aims
> > > > to enrich the lifecycle to bind custom plugins.
> > > >
> > > > Today projects are no more just about creating a jar - war are no
> more
> > > > about java etc... - most of the time (frontend, living doc, build
> time
> > > > generation, security validation, ....). Indeed you can force to bind
> > > > plugins to existing phases but it is quite hard, unatural and rarely
> > > > maintainable in time: whatever you do, you want a custom packaging
> > using
> > > a
> > > > custom lifecycle (to be able to run separately phases of the build -
> > and
> > > > sometimes independently, mvn frontend not depending of mvn package or
> > mvn
> > > > compile would be neat but not required for me).
> > > >
> > > > So the extension i have in mind will handle both or wouldnt be
> usable.
> > > >
> > > > About loosing the convention, after fighting for 7 years to not
> respect
> > > it,
> > > > I think the ecosystem changed and we must accept it as bazel and
> gradle
> > > do.
> > > > Does not mean we break ourself, we keep our default, it just means an
> > > > application must be able to redefining its own lifecycle+packaging
> > (which
> > > > is a pair named a build ;)).
> > > >
> > > > Think we can't stack plugin on a single phase anymore, having 5+
> > plugins
> > > on
> > > > pre-package is very hard to maintain and share in a team - plus it
> > doesnt
> > > > really makes sense on a build point of view.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed we can add phases as we have process classes after compile,
> > > > prepackage before package etc.. but it stays arbitrary for maven
> > project
> > > > dev and does not reflect the agility projects take these days IMHO
> and
> > if
> > > > done in our core delivery it would slow down most build for no gain
> so
> > it
> > > > must be in user land IMHO.
> > > >
> > > > Hope it makes more sense presented this way.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Le sam. 4 juil. 2020 à 05:28, Hervé BOUTEMY a
> > > > écrit :
> > > >
> > > > > first: thanks for sharing
> > > > >
> > > > > from a high level point of view, the risk I see is to loose our
> > > > > conventions.
> > > > > But let's try and see before judging
> > > > >
> > > > > I think there are 2 topics currently mixed:
> > > > > - default lifecycle phases:
> > > > > do you want to add or remove phases? [1]
> > > > > - default plugin bindings:
> > > > > clearly, you want to have specific default bindings. On default
> > > > > bindings, as
> > > > > they are defined per-packaging [2] (that's what is triggered behind
> > > > > packaging
> > > > > in pom.xml)
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Hervé
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://maven.apache.org/ref/3.6.3/maven-core/lifecycles.html
> > > > >
> > > > > [2]
> > > https://maven.apache.org/ref/3.6.3/maven-core/default-bindings.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Le vendredi 3 juillet 2020, 09:20:25 CEST Romain Manni-Bucau a
> écrit
> > :
> > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wonder if we already discussed defining the lifecycle in the
> > project
> > > > > (maybe
> > > > > > in $root/.mvn).
> > > > > > High level the need is to be able to change the default lifecycle
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > root pom without having to define a custom extension - in other
> > words
> > > > it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > about having a built-in extension.
> > > > > > The typical need is to add a mojo in the default lifecycle (add
> > > > frontend
> > > > > > magement for ex) or replace some plugins by others (for example
> > > > compiler
> > > > > by
> > > > > > scalac plugin, surefire by spec2 plugin for a scala based project
> > > > > etc...).
> > > > > > The way I'm seeing it is to let the xml defining the lifecycle be
> > put
> > > > in
> > > > > > .mvn/default-lifecycle.xml - I don't know if we want to use the
> > > prefix
> > > > > > (default here) as a reference you can put in the pom but at least
> > > > default
> > > > > > makes sense IMO.
> > > > > > The lifecycle.xml itself would likely be extended to add some
> > > > > precondition
> > > > > > to each plugin (if src/main/frontend exists then add frontend:npm
> > for
> > > > > ex).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know it is a quite common need I have and not something I would
> > put
> > > > in
> > > > > a
> > > > > > custom extension because it is very "by project" and not
> shareable
> > > so a
> > > > > > shared extension does not make sense and packaging a
> > plugin/extension
> > > > > for a
> > > > > > single project is bothering for nothing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm planning to give a try with a custom extension in the summer
> > but
> > > > > > thought it can be worth some discussion there too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wdyt?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > @rmannibucau | Blog
> > > > > > | Old Blog
> > > > > > | Github
> > > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau>
> > > > > > | LinkedIn | Book
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > --
> > Sent from my phone
> >
>
--
Sent from my phone
