Le lun. 17 mars 2025 à 12:29, Martin Desruisseaux <
martin.desruisse...@geomatys.com> a écrit :
> Le 2025-03-17 à 12 h 02, Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit :
>
> > Concretely the issue there is that you now require the plugins to
> > configure a list of (type, scope) instead of a list of types to be
> > functional.
> >
> > I'd personally prefer we assume that types and scopes as two things do
> > not make sense anymore in maven 4 and just keep type (or use a new
> > name if it helps, maybe "configuration" - joking on this one) and keep
> > that easy to consume.
> >
> The scope is closely related to which plugin will use the JAR, while the
> type said how the plugin use the JAR.
It is just almost true for org.apache.maven.plugins, likely wrong for most
others IMHO so I wouldn't start from the assumption.
> Therefore, I think that plugins
> would filter the dependencies by their scope before any further
> examination. Having that information separated in the <scope> element
> may make the filtering easier. Example: scope "processor" = "used by the
> processor plugin" (some legacy version I presume, before APT became part
> of javac), scope "doclet" = "used by the javadoc plugin", etc. Then, the
> type ("classpath-jar" versus "modular-jar") refines which tool options
> to use.
>
This is a quite dangerous target cause you will end up with scope = plugin
to keep it useable.
This is why i think just having a group flag and being able to request
groups, potentially alias a set of groups for easiness is sufficent moving
forward and embracing all the work you started to do.
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
>
