On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Stephen Connolly <[email protected]> wrote: > if phase is specified then goal is unused was my reading of the docs when I > read them (a while back and I am lazy and have not gone looking at/for the > docs since then)
thanks. This implies that a forked execution of a mojo had better not depend on something produced in the reactor. I'm not sure that's unreasonable, even if it painted me into a pretty small corner in the license-maven-plugin due to my unwillingness to turn it into a multi-module project. > > > On 1 January 2013 15:01, Benson Margulies <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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] >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
