On 22-May-09, at 11:29 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
2009/5/22 Jason van Zyl <jvan...@sonatype.com>
On 22-May-09, at 10:46 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
Then both goals are bound to the integration-test phase, as I
would expect
I think 2.x is a little lax. It should blow up and tell you that
you're
trying to wire the mojo to a phase not specified in the mojo
itself. If it
is supposed to flexible wrt where it runs in the lifecycle then no
phase
should be specified in the mojo. You're doing something the author
of the
mojo did not intend.
Eh, I would not agree (other than in the case of the failsafe-maven-
plugin)
A user generally wouldn't because you are never saddled with
supporting the resulting outcome. I am very much driven by the
question what is truly supportable. I want to move more toward what is
definitely supported and making extremely clear boundaries like
finalizing classes, being strict about lifecycle binding and anything
else that makes it clear where you become responsible for your use
versus the community. This is my reasoning. No user is ever going to
support limiting a behavior they use.
I (as a plugin user) might have a perfectly good reason for re-
binding a
goal to a different phase...
Do you?
At that point you wander into the same situation we have with people
wanting to do anything they want. Then you combine N plugins wired to
phases other then what they intended then you've got undocumented,
unsupported use. I honestly don't think this benefits anyone. This
variance has a very real cost. If we had disallowed this to start with
then you as the user would have to talk to the author or make your own
version.
Some areas may be a little grayer then others but someone trying to
bind a mojo that is designated for the generate-sources phases to
another phase makes no sense. Every mojo should be that clear cut and
if it's not then that's a problem in and of itself.
for example I might need to execute something
in-between and therefore shift things back a phase... ok so that
should be a
2.x problem once 3.x gets the build planning code, but I would still
think
that Maven should not bomb out just because a plugin user has re-
bound the
phase from the default phase for a goal...
+1 for Maven giving a big fat warning though
My €0.02 in any case
Noted.
-Stephen
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus
http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E
----------------------------------------------------------
the course of true love never did run smooth ...
-- Shakespeare
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
