I've reworked the toolchain stuff to work without the build-context component that was removed in the trunk. As a side-effect it became easier to backport to 2.0.x. it should work in current 2.1-SNAPSHOT and 2.0.9-SNAPSHOT binaries. the shared/toolchains project artifacts with components needs to be manually put into the M2-HOME/lib folder.
I consider the current version stable myself, I've rewritten 3 plugins so far to use the toolchains (all java/jdk related) and it seems to work fine and is reasonably simple. What is currently necessary is to get some peer review on the current api/implementation. Writing additional toolchain implementation is indeed a good way to review the code. Eventually I'd like to move the shared/toolchains project into components/ and make it part of the maven's core as it's not going to work otherwise. Milos On Dec 17, 2007 10:44 PM, Shane Isbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Where are we sitting on the toolchain support? At NMaven, we're going back > to basics to get better alignment and integration with the rest of Maven. > Toolchain support ranks highly. I see some interfaces and Java support > within the toolchain project, but I don't know how complete this is. If > the > interfaces are stable, I can work on getting a dotnet implementation. > > Thanks, > Shane > > On Nov 10, 2007 4:10 AM, Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Milos Kleint wrote: > > > > > On Nov 6, 2007 4:35 PM, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> On 6 Nov 07, at 4:00 AM 6 Nov 07, Milos Kleint wrote: > > >> > > >> > Hello, > > >> > > > >> > I've got a working prototype of the toolchains proposal. I'm able > to > > >> > define > > >> > the jdk toolchains and have them used in a project. Works with > > patched > > >> > compiler, surefire, javadoc plugins. > > >> > details are at http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Toolchains > > >> > > > >> > issues for resolution: > > >> > 1. currently using build-context, I heard stories about it going > > away. > > >> > > >> My only concern with the build-context, and John can counters as he > > >> deems fit, but it's hard to tell where through the core of Maven the > > >> context actually pops out. You still need to inspect the session, but > > >> the session would be the one place that you could look to see what is > > >> changing as it passes through the core. The rub right now is that > many > > >> components internally are not setup to use a session. That's my > > >> opinion: that the session passing through the core could just as > > >> easily serve as a build context it's just architecturally the context > > >> is easier to wormhole through the code. > > > > > > > > > Possibly true. In order to move the toolchains code to session, we > would > > > need a way to serialize/deserialize Objects. The actual live instances > > > cannot be used due to plugun classloading. > > > > Just a suggestion: You might give XStream with the binary driver a try. > > Not > > as bloated as XML and your classes do not have to implement > Serializable. > > > > - Jörg > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >
