On 26 April 2010 12:05, Benjamin Bentmann <benjamin.bentm...@udo.edu> wrote:
> Stephen Connolly wrote: > > ... but each release of m3 >> would have it's own compatibility info and we would have another state: >> unknown >> >> e.g. >> >> <thread-safety> >> <plugin groupId="..." artifactId="..."> >> <wieve-mode action="ban" versions="...">message</wieve-mode> >> <wieve-mode action="warn" versions="...">message</wieve-mode> >> <wieve-mode action="checked" versions="..."/> >> <parallel-mode action="ban" versions="...">message</paralle-mode> >> <parallel-mode action="warn" versions="...">message</paralle-mode> >> <parallel-mode action="checked" versions="...">message</paralle-mode> >> </plugin> >> </thread-safety> >> >> Any plugins not in the list would be "unknown" and the user gets a big fat >> warning >> > > Did you also consider the maintainability aspect of such a list? No user > wants to see "big fat warnings" that are irrelevant for their builds so I > envision users will either bug the plugin author or us directly to add > plugin X to this list and ask us to roll a new release of this list such > that they get rid of that warning. > > Plugins should be self-describing, that's why mojo annotations and the > plugin descriptor exists. I definitively don't want to see us maintaining > the metadata for 3rd party plugins. > > For this reason, I prefer the original suggestion to introduce a new mojo > annotation. Apparently, whatever mojo annotation we come up with, it's not > present in any existing plugin release. Now, for plugins missing the > threading anno, what is the safer assumption with respect to proper build > results: That mojo X is thread-safe (when this was never before a concern) > or that it isn't? > > IMHO, there's only way to limit this "oh, I deliberately enabled nitro > injection and now my engine blew up, how am I supposed to know that this is > dangerous?": Unless a mojo is explicitly marked with @threadsafe, issue a > warning like > > "Goal X does not appear to support concurrent execution and might fail the > build, use parallel building at your own risk." > > Fair enough, but I would also like to be able to annotate a mojo such that I explicitly don't want it invoked in parallel and not warn the user (perhaps explain to the user why certain mojos cannot be executed in parallel) -Stephen > > Benjamin > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
