Le mar. 14 juil. 2020 à 20:01, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> a écrit :
> in this example, you strictly define a new "my-mapping" packaging, like > done in Maven core for every default packagings [1] with documentation in > [2]: don't call it bindings, but simply "packaging-bindings.xml" and it's > more clear > Nop, the packaging is declined in a lifecycle implicitly (which enables to do "mvn my-test") otherwise it wouldn't work with just a packaging. > > the more I think about it, the more I feel that what we need is > pluginManagement and eventually plugins import, like we did in the past for > dependencyManagement [3] > > This would permit: > - to import plugins versions form an external source, > - share plugins configurations and executions either in the reactor, > either from outside > > I still don't know if this import should be triggered as a > dependencyManagement scope, like "import" scope was added > Well, yes and no because it still relies on the inheritance compared to the composition which keeps the big drawback to easily break (just add a new module needing something a little bit different, or just try to exclude one of the plugins automatically imported - it is in dependency model but not in plugin one). It would also require to be able to import a chain of plugins and not just a plugin from a management block or all plugin from the same block (as done with the packaging in the sample), otherwise you are back to redefining all plugins in your new module or to be forced to define a new parent to isolate the children from this shared declarations. I'm also not sure how you would merge plugins (let say I import frontend-plugins and java-plugins, how do I define their order in main and test phases)? Back to the lifecycle merge issue, no? So it can be about defining a new <lifecycleManagement> section containing this mix of packaging+binding definition (the overlap is certain so we shouldnt force to define both IMHO) but it also means waiting for another major and does not change much the design which is about being able to define a new binding+packaging. The part which can be smoother though is the fact to patch an existing packaging even if I'm not yet seeing it working. The more I'm thinking about it, more I think the patch option is about defining edges of the build graph (frontend:npm-build "runs after" "process-classes" for example) whereas the packaging+binding option is about defining the global graph (of one new module type) explicitly. > > Or if we could do something at dependencyManagement and/or dependency > level. > Given "extensions" is a boolean represented as a String (for inheritance > reasons), why not use this String to have support > <extensions>import</extensions> that imports content? > > Regards, > > Hervé > > > [1] https://maven.apache.org/ref/3.6.3/maven-core/default-bindings.html > > [2] https://maven.apache.org/ref/3.6.3/maven-core/default-bindings.html > > [3] https://maven.apache.org/ref/3.6.3/maven-core/default-bindings.html > > Le dimanche 12 juillet 2020, 19:27:28 CEST Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit : > > Just to illustrate the proposal - likely to rework on config side to > avoid > > to kind of expose maven IoC (as we were playing with application contexts > > 10 years ago ;)) here is a small repo: > > https://github.com/rmannibucau/custom-lifecycle-extension. > > > > A sample project ([1]) defines a custom packaging ([2]) which takes its > > definition in mappings.xml ([3]). This sample just renames some phase and > > replace one plugin by another for demo purposes but it is what I had in > > mind to give the user enough flexibility for its build. > > A complete alternative which works too - = achieves the same goal - is to > > enable the user to define the build chain somewhere (like <plugins> but > > order is the straight definition order for example) and autowire > everything > > as expected through an extension to avoid all the headaches associated > with > > the inheritance and other indirections making the pom execution hard to > > follow. The issue with this one is to lose the aliasing feature. > > > > [1] > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau/custom-lifecycle-extension/tree/master/sample > > [2] > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau/custom-lifecycle-extension/blob/master/sample > > /pom.xml#L10 [3] > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau/custom-lifecycle-extension/blob/master/sample > > /.extensions/custom/mappings.xml > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > https://github.com/rmannibucau> > > | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > > < > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > > > > > > > > > Le dim. 12 juil. 2020 à 18:10, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > a > > > > écrit : > > > Side topic - still thinking out loud - which is also covered by custom > > > lifecycles: aliases. A common need is to alias a complex command ("mvn > > > docker" executing "mvn dependency:build-classpath git-commit:generate > > > docker:bundle docker-java:cds" to give an idea), with default or merged > > > lifecycles it is hard to make relevant. Indeed, an option is a custom > > > plugin or extension reading aliases somewhere and hacking > lifecycleStater > > > to stash/pop the real goal to execute it, works but is a workaround > > > whereas > > > custom lifecycle gives a proper solution to that. > > > > > > What I'm unsure today is if the custom lifecycle must be fully > explicit or > > > can insert phases and goals in an existing lifecycle ("patch mode"), > not > > > sure what is the simplest for users. > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github > > > <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn > > > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > > > < > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performan > > > ce> > > > > > > > > > Le dim. 12 juil. 2020 à 11:58, Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > > > > > a écrit : > > >> Le dim. 12 juil. 2020 à 11:26, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> > a > > >> > > >> écrit : > > >>> Le dimanche 12 juillet 2020, 10:37:36 CEST Romain Manni-Bucau a > écrit : > > >>> > Le sam. 11 juil. 2020 à 23:01, Hervé BOUTEMY < > herve.bout...@free.fr> a > > >>> > > > >>> > écrit : > > >>> > > Le samedi 11 juillet 2020, 12:55:37 CEST Romain Manni-Bucau a > écrit : > > >>> > > > Le sam. 11 juil. 2020 à 12:09, Hervé BOUTEMY < > > >>> > > >>> herve.bout...@free.fr> a > > >>> > > >>> > > > écrit : > > >>> > > > > are really your plugin bindings so specific to your build > that > > >>> > > >>> they > > >>> > > >>> > > could > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > not be reused and need full ad-hoc definition? > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Think so > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > I imagined to provide composite packaging: > > >>> > > > > <packaging>war+front+living-doc+docker</packaging> > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > in fact, "front", "living-doc", "docker" could provide > secondary > > >>> > > >>> sets > > >>> > > >>> > > of > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > reusable plugins bindings: each build would compose (with > "+") > > >>> > > >>> based > > >>> > > >>> > > > > on > > >>> > > > > his > > >>> > > > > requirements > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Ok but "front" means already 5-6 different bindings at least > > >>> > > > > >>> > > nice, that proves that this "sub-packaging" is useful: what > would be > > >>> > > >>> the > > >>> > > >>> > > bindings, please, to make this case very concrete? > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > and > > >>> > > > "living-doc" is per project by design (depends your stack, > leads > > >>> > > > to > > >>> > > > different set of plugins). > > >>> > > > > >>> > > let's dig a little bit: can you provide a few examples of stacks > and > > >>> > > corresponding bindings, please? > > >>> > > perhaps "living-doc" is too generic, and should be more specific > per > > >>> > > >>> stack > > >>> > > >>> > Jar+front=jar lifecycle + frontend:npm-install + frontend:npm-build > > >>> > > >>> in such a case, where it's only 1 single plugin, we don't even need > the > > >>> "sub- > > >>> packaging" feature: adding the plugin will use its default bindings > > >>> (just tell > > >>> if that one is not clear: I'm not sure if this is clearly documented) > > >> > > >> For all these plugins there is no default binding or it does nuot > match > > >> mentionned lifecycle so it must still be customized. > > >> Can be done in a pom but in multimodule it is still nice to be able to > > >> share it between 3-4 modules - this is why the proposed extension > helps a > > >> lot and enables to migrate tooling (yarn to npm for ex) trivially. > > >> To rephrase it: it is to make maven align on modern dev where > inheritance > > >> is dropped in favor of composition because it is more flexible and > easy > > >> to > > >> maintain. > > >> > > >>> > Then you can add openapi.json generation with > > >>> > > >>> geronimo-openapi-maven-plugin > > >>> same as before: adding a plugin should do the job of default goal > > >>> bindings > > >> > > >> When used in 1 module yes, otherwise it enforce to either create a > fake > > >> parent (broken design imho) or duplicate the plugin instead of being > able > > >> to reuse a standard *project specific* way of doing (which is super > > >> important for consistency). > > >> > > >>> > You have the same with a war instead of a jar. > > >>> > > >>> thisis why "sub-packaging" is useful: it can be used whatever the > main > > >>> packaging is. And default goal bindings when is a plugin is added is > > >>> also > > >>> independant of the packaging > > >>> > > >>> > Ablut living doc it can be several exec + openapi patch (either > with a > > >>> > > >>> json > > >>> > > >>> > plugin or something else like ant or even another exec or > > >>> > > >>> gplus:execute for > > >>> > > >>> > what I saw). Add github-page or cms deployment, jira chabgelog > > >>> > > >>> generation > > >>> > > >>> > (saw it with public and private plugins) and doc content itself > can be > > >>> > > >>> home > > >>> > > >>> > made (exec), jbake based, antora based (frontend but not the same > > >>> > > >>> config > > >>> > > >>> > than build one) or even jekyll based for what I saw. > > >>> > > >>> parent POM, or reactor pom is already there for that: I don't > understand > > >>> what > > >>> a new configuration file will add > > >>> > > >>> > Indeed npm can be yarn too and you can add npm-test and potentially > > >>> > > >>> npm-e2e > > >>> > > >>> > to the combinations > > >>> > > > >>> > > > I envision a reusable solution can be a thing but it is way > more > > >>> > > >>> complex > > >>> > > >>> > > > than having these dynamic bindings which are straight forward > on > > >>> > > >>> user > > >>> > > >>> > > side > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > so I prefer to let the user adapt maven to his need rather than > > >>> > > > the > > >>> > > > opposite. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Also note that your proposal makes us moving one step forward > but > > >>> > > >>> we > > >>> > > >>> > > > stay > > >>> > > > blocked: how do you merge phases and plugin order? This can > also > > >>> > > >>> depends > > >>> > > >>> > > on > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > projetcs and "+" only allows one order whereas order can be > > >>> > > >>> different > > >>> > > >>> > > > between main and test plugins so you would need a complete dsl, > > >>> > > >>> not that > > >>> > > >>> > > > easy compared to being explicit imo. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > sure, this part is only one step > > >>> > > I need examples of such "merge phase" and order requirements to > > >>> > > >>> better see > > >>> > > >>> > > what mechanisms would be useful > > >>> > > > >>> > Start by what i mentionned just before, jar+frontend which can be > > >>> > simpkified by > > >>> > > > >>> > Compile-class+npm-run+test-java+npm-test > > >>> > > > >>> > Compile-class runs before test-java > > >>> > Npm-run runs before npm-test > > >>> > All combinations respecting that are used (if one phase generates > code > > >>> > > >>> for > > >>> > > >>> > the other using typescript-generator plugin or the opposite). > > >>> > > >>> classical phases are sufficient: I don't get what is missing > > >> > > >> No, this is sufficient when you add one or two plugins without > profiles, > > >> otherwise you can do it but it is a mess - and to be honest, even if I > > >> know > > >> how it works and I made it working, I always reworked my build to > bypass > > >> maven and add my own substeps in such cases cause in terms of > > >> maintainance > > >> it is too costly and rigid. > > >> > > >> Stephen proposal was helping even if priorities are not explicit > enough > > >> IMO -a chain is saner for me - but was a nice workaround to have it > today > > >> without breaking pom versioning. > > >> > > >> If I want to solve it cleanly today i would do a packaging extension > with > > >> some autoconfig extension based on properties. > > >> This thread is just about avoiding to create an useless project with a > > >> different lifecycle just for that purpose and enable it to be done > inline > > >> in the project. > > >> > > >> But thinking out loud, it can be done with a plugin extension too and > be > > >> defined in the plugin conf too instead of another folder. > > >> > > >>> > > > > this could be injected by the LifecycleBindingsInjector [1] > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > WDYT? > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > Regards, > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hervé > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > [1] > > >>> > > >>> > https://github.com/apache/maven/blob/master/maven-core/src/main/java/org > > >>> /a > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> pache/maven/model/plugin/DefaultLifecycleBindingsInjector.java#L63> > > >>> > > >>> > > > > Le vendredi 10 juillet 2020, 19:33:35 CEST Romain > Manni-Bucau a > > >>> > > >>> écrit > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > Looked a bit on how to impl this kind of extension and it > > >>> > > >>> would help > > >>> > > >>> > > if > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > maven wouldn't assume everything is hardcoded in > > >>> > > >>> components.xml (or > > >>> > > >>> > > eq) > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > or > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > if sisu would enable to reuse its plexus scanner which has > a > > >>> > > >>> very > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > low > > >>> > > > > > visibility today. It is also weird to not have access to > the > > >>> > > >>> guice > > >>> > > >>> > > > > injector > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > in components and have to go through the plexuscontainer to > > >>> > > >>> lookup > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > beans. > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > As code often says more than words, here a small hello > world > > >>> > > >>> showing > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > that > > >>> > > > > > reusing this part of maven "core" is not that trivial: > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > @Component(role = AbstractMavenLifecycleParticipant.class) > > >>> > > > > > public class CustomLifecycleExtension extends > > >>> > > > > > AbstractMavenLifecycleParticipant { > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > @Inject > > >>> > > > > > private PlexusContainer container; > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > @Override > > >>> > > > > > public void afterProjectsRead(final MavenSession > session) > > >>> > > >>> throws > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > MavenExecutionException { > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > final Path root = > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > session.getRequest().getMultiModuleProjectDirectory().toPath() > > >>> > > > > > ; > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > final Path configFolder = > > >>> > > > > > root.resolve(".extensions/custom"); > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > final Path mappings = > > >>> > > >>> configFolder.resolve("mappings.xml"); > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > if (Files.exists(mappings)) { > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > final ComponentSetDescriptor componentSet = > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > readAs(mappings, ComponentSetDescriptor.class, null); > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > System.out.println(componentSet); > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > } > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > super.afterProjectsRead(session); > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > } > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > private <T> T readAs(final Path path, final Class<T> > type, > > >>> > > >>> final > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > String wrapper) { > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > try { > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > final ClassRealm container = > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > this.container.getContainerRealm(); > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > final Class<?> converterType = container > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > .loadClass("org.eclipse.sisu.plexus.PlexusBeanConverter"); > > >>> > > >>> final > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > Class<?> > > >>> > > > > > typeLiteralType = container > > >>> > > >>> .loadClass("com.google.inject.TypeLiteral"); > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > final Object converter = > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > this.container.lookup(converterType); > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > return > > >>> > > > > > type.cast(converterType.getMethod("convert", > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > typeLiteralType, String.class).invoke( > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > converter, > > >>> > > > > > typeLiteralType.getMethod("get", > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > Class.class).invoke(null, type), > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > (wrapper != null ? "<" + wrapper + ">" > : > > >>> "") + > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > new > > >>> > > >>> String(Files.readAllBytes(path), > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > StandardCharsets.UTF_8) > > >>> > > >>> .replaceFirst("<\\?[^>]+\\?>", > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > "").trim() + (wrapper != null ? "</" + wrapper + ">" : > ""))); > > >>> > > > > > } > > >>> > > > > > catch > > >>> > > > > > (final Exception e) { > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > throw new IllegalStateException(e); > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > } > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > } > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > } > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > Indeed it can't work since componentsetdescriptor uses > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > plexusconfiguration > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > which is not instantiable but it shows the workarounds > needed > > >>> > > >>> to > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > just > > >>> > > > > > lookup plexus converter and reuse plexus xml binding. > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > The code should just look like that IMHO: > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > @Component(role = AbstractMavenLifecycleParticipant.class) > > >>> > > > > > public class CustomLifecycleExtension extends > > >>> > > > > > AbstractMavenLifecycleParticipant { > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > @Inject > > >>> > > > > > private PlexusBeanConverter converter; > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > @Override > > >>> > > > > > public void afterProjectsRead(final MavenSession > session) > > >>> > > >>> throws > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > MavenExecutionException { > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > final Path root = > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > session.getRequest().getMultiModuleProjectDirectory().toPath() > > >>> > > > > > ; > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > final Path configFolder = > > >>> > > > > > root.resolve(".extensions/custom"); > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > final Path mappings = > > >>> > > >>> configFolder.resolve("mappings.xml"); > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > if (Files.exists(mappings)) { > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > final ComponentSetDescriptor componentSet = > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > readAs(mappings, ComponentSetDescriptor.class, null); > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > System.out.println(componentSet); > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > } > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > super.afterProjectsRead(session); > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > } > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > private <T> T readAs(final Path path, final Class<T> > type, > > >>> > > >>> final > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > String wrapper) { > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > try { > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > return type.cast( > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > converter.convert(TypeLiteral.get(type), > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > (wrapper != null ? "<" + > wrapper + > > >>> > > >>> ">" : > > >>> > > "") > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > + > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > new > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > String(Files.readAllBytes(path), StandardCharsets.UTF_8) > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > .replaceFirst("<\\?[^>]+\\?>", "").trim() + > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > (wrapper != null ? > "</" + > > >>> > > > > > wrapper > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > + ">" : ""))); > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > } catch (final Exception e) { > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > throw new IllegalStateException(e); > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > } > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > } > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > } > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > Once this part is fixed (using a custom parser) the next > one > > >>> > > >>> is how > > >>> > > >>> > > to > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > contribute global components from an extension. > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > I'll ignore the parsing - currently I have a custom sax > parser > > >>> > > >>> but I > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > hope > > >>> > > > > > to be able to drop it soon - it is quite easy to contribute > > >>> > > >>> back the > > >>> > > >>> > > new > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > mapping - note i dropped the lifecycle particupant which > does > > >>> > > >>> not > > >>> > > >>> > > really > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > help there cause only contributing mappings when the > extension > > >>> > > >>> is > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > created > > >>> > > > > > makes sense: > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > @Component(role = StartupContributor.class, > > >>> > > >>> instantiationStrategy = > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > Strategies.LOAD_ON_START) > > >>> > > > > > public class StartupContributor { > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > @Inject > > >>> > > > > > private MavenSession session; > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > @Inject > > >>> > > > > > private PlexusContainer container; > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > @PostConstruct > > >>> > > > > > public void init() { > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > final Path root = > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > session.getRequest().getMultiModuleProjectDirectory().toPath() > > >>> > > > > > ; > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > final Path configFolder = > > >>> > > > > > root.resolve(".extensions/custom"); > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > final Path mappings = > > >>> > > >>> configFolder.resolve("mappings.xml"); > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > if (Files.exists(mappings)) { > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > final DefaultLifecycleMapping mapping = > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > *loadOrParse(*mappings*)*; > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > container.addComponent(mapping, > > >>> > > >>> LifecycleMapping.class, > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > "my-mapping"); > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > } > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > } > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > } > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > Then we can put the new mapping as packaging and voilà :). > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > If you have tips for the parsing it is welcomed otherwise > I'll > > >>> > > > > >>> > > continue > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > to > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > play with my custom parser. > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > >>> > > > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > >>> > > > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > > >>> > > > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | > Book > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > < > > >>> > > >>> > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performa > > >>> nc > > >>> > > >>> > > > > e > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > Le dim. 5 juil. 2020 à 11:09, Romain Manni-Bucau < > > >>> > > > > >>> > > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > a > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > écrit : > > >>> > > > > > > Here is a sample public build: > > >>> > > > > https://github.com/talend/component-runtime > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Interesting modules are - just listing one per type - if > > >>> > > >>> master > > >>> > > >>> > > looks > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > > weird tag 1.1.19 can be a fallback: > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > 1. > > >>> > > >>> > https://github.com/Talend/component-runtime/blob/master/component-starte > > >>> r-> > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > > server/pom.xml 2. > > >>> > > >>> > https://github.com/Talend/component-runtime/blob/master/documentation/po > > >>> m > > >>> . > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > > xml 3. > > >>> > > >>> > https://github.com/Talend/component-runtime/blob/master/images/component > > >>> -s > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > > erver-image/pom.xml > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Side note being some other - private :( - module do all > the > > >>> > > > > > > 3 > > >>> > > > > >>> > > things > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > in a > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > single module - and indeed faking module for build > > >>> > > >>> constraints is > > >>> > > >>> > > not > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > an > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > option. > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Hope it helps. > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Le dim. 5 juil. 2020 à 11:02, Hervé BOUTEMY > > >>> > > > > > > <herve.bout...@free.fr> > > >>> > > > > >>> > > a > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > > écrit : > > >>> > > > > > >> Le samedi 4 juillet 2020, 23:15:19 CEST Romain > Manni-Bucau > > >>> > > > > > >> a > > >>> > > > > >>> > > écrit : > > >>> > > > > > >> > Le sam. 4 juil. 2020 à 18:09, Stephen Connolly < > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > >>> > > > > > >> > > 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? > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> > All my projects not being libraries since ~7 years. > > >>> > > >>> Frontend is > > >>> > > >>> > > > > often 3 > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > exec, living doc is often 4-5 exec, docker is often > 3-4 > > >>> > > >>> exec > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > >> > too > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > (needs > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > some computation steps for cds or build time > > >>> > > >>> precomputation > > >>> > > >>> > > things) > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > plus > > >>> > > > > > >> > custom resources, git integration meta, custom > artifact > > >>> > > > > > >> > attachement, > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> etc... > > >>> > > > > > >> I like this approach: can we share a demo project to > have a > > >>> > > > > >>> > > concrete > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > >> case? > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > These are very common use cases today in the same > build. > > >>> > > >>> It is > > >>> > > >>> > > key > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > to > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> keep > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > a single build orchestrator (mvn) for team sharing > and CI > > >>> > > > > > >> > industrialization. Issue being each project set it up > > >>> > > > > >>> > > differently > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > and > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > making it generic is often overcomplex (living doc > can be > > >>> > > >>> jbake > > >>> > > >>> > > > > plugin > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> or a > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > plain mvn exec:java or a groovy script etc... > depending > > >>> > > >>> doc > > >>> > > >>> > > output > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > and > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > reusability of the code+libs). With software lifecycle > > >>> > > >>> passing > > >>> > > >>> > > from > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > >> years > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > to months we are in a more dynamic and changing > ecosystem > > >>> > > >>> our > > >>> > > >>> > > > > beloved > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> build > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > tool should align on IMHO. > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> I suppose we all agree from very high level point of > view: > > >>> IMHO, > > >>> > > >>> > > we > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > now > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> need > > >>> > > > > > >> to dig a little more in detail on typical cases, with > > >>> > > >>> sample demo > > >>> > > >>> > > > > builds. > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> Then > > >>> > > > > > >> we'll work on solutions. > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > > That sounds like a dedicated plugin use case > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> > This is why i want a generic extension as solution, > each > > >>> > > > > > >> > project > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > have > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> its > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > specificities and standardizing it is hard and likely > > >>> > > >>> adds too > > >>> > > >>> > > much > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > complexity compared to let the user enriching default > > >>> > > >>> phases > > >>> > > >>> > > (can > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > be a > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > merge of 2 packagings instead of a new one fully > > >>> > > > > > >> > defined). > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> yes, looks like adding "sub-packaging"s for additional > > >>> > > > > > >> build > > >>> > > > > >>> > > aspects > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > >> (frontend, living doc, container, ...), taking care of > > >>> > > >>> eventual > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > >> interactions > > >>> > > > > > >> between each one > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > If I stick to plain maven and want a clean build > without > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > workarounds I > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> must > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > write plugins+extensions for each of the apps - > plugins > > >>> > > >>> and ext > > >>> > > >>> > > > > must be > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > reusable or not be IMHO, sounds not great whereas > maven > > >>> > > > > >>> > > backbone is > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > very > > >>> > > > > > >> > good, this is why I want to push it to the next step > to > > >>> > > >>> keep a > > >>> > > >>> > > high > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > >> quality > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > unique (in terms of #tools) build for projects. > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> > I dont have big blockers to do it without patching > maven > > >>> > > >>> itself > > >>> > > >>> > > so > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > will > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> not > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > spend much energy if idea is not liked but I hope > maven > > >>> > > >>> tackles > > >>> > > >>> > > it > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > some > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> day > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > in a built in fashion (which means better IDE and > > >>> > > >>> ecosystem > > >>> > > >>> > > > > integration > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > even if personally I dont abuse of that). > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> from experience, sharing a solution before sharing > issues > > >>> > > >>> that > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > >> the > > >>> > > > > > >> solution is > > >>> > > > > > >> expected to solve makes it hard to get consensus. > > >>> > > > > > >> You shared the high level issue: that's great. > > >>> > > > > > >> Now we must share sample builds. > > >>> > > > > > >> And work on solutions. > > >>> > > > > > >> I'm all in > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> Regards, > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> Hervé > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > 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-performa > > >>> n > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > >> c > > >>> > > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >> > > e > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>> > > - > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 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 > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>> > > - > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > >> 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 > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>> > > - > > >>> > > 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 > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
