Christian Schulte wrote:
Not having specified an execution id does not necessarily mean someone
did not care about it. It means someone explicitly referred to the
default execution.
I disagree with this interpretation, mainly because I am not aware of
any docs that would indicate this to the user.
The "Maven Model" [0] and the corresponding XSD [1] say about the
execution id:
The identifier of this execution for labelling the goals during the build, and
for matching executions to merge during inheritance.
This description does not mention that the id "default" is meant to
refer to executions provided by lifecycle mappings from a packaging type.
The "POM Reference" [2] likewise does not state that there are special
ids available to refer to default executions. And from the "Introduction
to the Build Lifecycle" [3]:
Separate executions can also be given an ID so that during inheritance or the
application of profiles you can control whether goal configuration is merged or
turned into an additional execution.
This expresses the id's purpose to assist in
a) inheritance and
b) profile injection
Again, it's not stated that it can be used to control the executions
provided by a packaging type. In particular, the phrase "executions
*can* [...] be given an ID" merely expresses the ID is optional, not
that omitting it refers to the default executions of a plugin.
That is not working in Maven 2.0.x and that's the bug
to fix. A POM which relies on that bug needs to get fixed.
Considering the references I gave above, IMHO this is a design weakness,
not a bug. This hairsplitting is not because I want to simply reduce our
bug stats but because there is a subtle difference with regard to a
user's expectations. Spoken laxly, a bug is "should work as per spec but
actually doesn't" while here we have "would be nice to work but
currently isn't supported".
Hence, I don't see a foundation to require users that currently omit the
execution ids to "fix" their "broken" POMs because we retrospectively
changed the semantics. Choosing a fresh identifier as suggested by
others before instead of "default" is less likely to break existing builds.
Benjamin
[0]
http://maven.apache.org/ref/current/maven-model/maven.html#class_execution
[1] http://maven.apache.org/xsd/maven-4.0.0.xsd
[2] http://maven.apache.org/pom.html#Plugins
[3]
http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-the-lifecycle.html#Plugins
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
