Richard,
I love this idea and hate it at the same time. The idea of using
numbers, as I'm sure has been pointed out before, just seems awful. But
I understand what you are driving at. If there was a way to register
named phases with the numbers that would be better.
OTOH, wouldn't it be better just to allow the list of phases to be
specified in settings.xml?
Ralph
Richard van der Hoff wrote:
Brett Porter wrote:
Actually, before we jump into this, let's consider the use case at
hand. While easily solved by pre-package at this point, we may find
other needs.
To take these suggestions even further, perhaps the idea of a fixed
set of phases is too limiting. An alternative would be to number
phases, from (say) 0 to 1000, with the current named phases as aliases
for 100, 200, etc. Then it's easy for plugins which need it to slip in
an extra phase.
I've lost count of the number of times I've told people on #maven that
there is no way to ensure that a particular execution runs between
phases X and Y. Admittedly, there's a bug which means that execution
order isn't preserved within a phase, and fixing that would ameliorate
this.
Anyway, I'm fully expected to be shouted down, and told that this will
only lead to confusion; however, I think it's worth considering.
Cheers,
Richard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
