How would this phase work, in a practical manner? If someone runs the phase, which lifecycle gets executed? Or are you proposing a phase that cannot be explicitly called... like some sort of phase interface?
Eric On 4/4/07, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Right, so we're looking at a 2.1+ thing here. Adding them but changing the name defeats the whole purpose. Thanks for the info. -----Original Message----- From: John Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 10:21 AM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: [discuss] add validate/initialize to site lifecycle Max is right, if you add these phases to the site lifecycle (fine by me, I suppose), they'll have to have different names. This is really unfortunate, but that's the only way they can be incorporated into 2.0.x, or 2.1 (without some redesign). -john On 4/4/07, Max Bowsher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Brian E. Fox wrote: > > As Jerome pointed out earlier today on the enforcer thread, it would > > be nice to be able to bind some plugins like the enforcer to a phase > > that affects both default and site. After all, if you don't want to > > support some Maven/Jdk/Os/other version, chances are that applies to > > sites and reports as well (especially since they might fork to > > compile aka cobertura etc). > > > > > > > > Is there any drawback to adding one or both of those to the > > lifecycle, and if so, what about a new one for both? (although I > > suspect this is what validate was really intended for) > > Maven seems to require that phases be globally unique across all > lifecycles. DefaultLifecycleExecutor specifically tests for this and > throws a LifecycleExecutionException if a violation is detected. > > Max. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Eric Redmond http://codehaus.org/~eredmond
