ive had nothing but headaches with forked executions..specifically maven-surefire-plugin If I shut off fork in the <configuration> <forkMode>false<forkMode>everything works i'm not sure if this aberrant behaviour can be reproduced with other goal bindings in other plugins but reading past blog entries from Tran ..forked executions seem to always cause problems http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/jira-Created-MSUREFIRE-121-ability-to-add-dependency-to-jvm-s-classpath-rather-in-surefirebooter-clar-td191678.html WDYT? Martin ______________________________________________ Place long-winded disclaimer here
> Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 10:01:39 -0500 > Subject: Re: A subtlety with forked executions, looking for advice > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > My mystification just deepened. > > If @Execute only contains 'goal', and then the mojo is executed from > command line, all is well. > > If I add a 'phase=', then the command-line execution stops working. > That is, if I have both goal= and phase=, the goal seems to be > ignored. And since nothing in the pom explicitly binds the goal to the > phase, it never runs. > > Does this surprise anyone (else?)? > > > > On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Benson Margulies <[email protected]> > wrote: > > In the license-maven-plugin, there is a goal called > > 'aggregate-add-third-party'. > > > > until this morning, it was annotated with: > > > > @Execute( goal = "add-third-party" ) > > > > This caused a problem. The add-third-party Mojo can read data from > > dependencies. So, if module (a) attached a resource, and module (b) > > went to read that resource in add-third-party, it failed. Why? > > > > Well, 'add-third-party' is not part of a lifecycle. So forking it > > executes nothing else. So, the dependency wasn't there in the reactor. > > > > Even if, by the way, the dependency was attached in an earlier phase > > than the aggregate-add-third-party, it didn't help, since the fork > > happens in the aggregating project before the modules happen. > > > > One solution to this is to add phase = SOMETHING to that @Execute, so > > that the execution that produces the resource has somewhere to live. > > Since the default phase for aggregate-add-third-party of > > generate-resources, does generate-resources lead to a risk of > > something circular? > > > > I suppose that another would be to define an entire lifecycle, and > > thus create a phase just for the purpose of allowing things to happen > > that feed add-third-party. Now the plugin would need to be listed as > > an extension, which is a pain. > > > > Anyone have another suggestion? > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >
