On Mar 20, 2007, at 4:19 PM, Brian E. Fox wrote:
Personally I have not problem adding extra execution per thing
I want to enforce. IMO that is much clearer and simplifies
the implementing mojo.
Potentially yes, but it's also a performance issue invoking the plugin
extra times. In my situation, I have about 100+ modules that would be
doing this. If I can figure out how to make it execute only once per
execution no matter where the build is started, then I think
separating
them is logical. In fact, if this is possible, I think it's a
requirement.
Performance problem a? Sounds like a problem with mvn if its a bit
overhead to invoke 2 executions of the same plugin. But I got your
point.
Ya, I hear ya... it was just a comment... and more about how
the range syntax hurts my brain more than anything ;-) Just
looking at a range its not really easy to tell what it
means... where IMO the 1.0+ and 1.0* syntax is relatively
clear w/o having to go read a syntax mapping table ;-)
Although I am not a fan of the implementation, the syntax is logical
once you understand it. Not entirely covering all scenarios, but
certainly enough for this. I don't think the 1.0+, 1.0* is enough to
handle all cases.
Consider 2.1. Perhaps there is a regression in backwards compatibility
in the first build. Someone may want to say 2.0.6 < x < 2.1 || x > 2.1
(in otherwords greater than 2.0.6 but not 2.1.0. You can do this with
the current specification. I'm not sure that any expression
language is
going to be completely natural and support enough use cases... If
that's
true, then this one is as good as any. I could be convinced otherwise
though if there are some alternatives that can be pointed out.
I agree... if the range stuff works, then it does cover much more
scenarios... I still don't like it, but c'est la vie ;-)
--jason
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
