On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 09:23:19 +0000 Robert Scholte <[email protected]> wrote:
> > It will be a challenge and I'm not sure if it will make the documentation > easier. I think that this could work:create a IncludedLicenses object with a > String constructor and a getter/setter for the list. I don't think that using > setters in the mojo will work. I expect Plexus to search for the setter bound > to the type of the parameter. Let me know if one of these options worked. > Maybe worth writing somewhere. Robert Ok I have hack something in license-m-p (see https://fisheye.codehaus.org/changelog/mojo?cs=17833) I create a Class for each such parameter. Plexus found my type, so will use a setterField convertor, for the simple string to split, I need to had a setter in the mojo (will then use the constructor of my object to split data). for the list case, will use a *setter* of my object to in fact add a new entry in the list. IMHO, it would be a lot more clean to create a plexus converter, but I did not find any clue for how to custom the convertorLookup in componentconfigurator... Will post @ maven-dev for this. To resume : class MyMojo { private MyParamters myParameters; setMyParameters(String simpleStringToSplit) { myParameter = new StringOrList(simpleStringToSplit); } static class MyParamters { private List<String> data; MyParamters() { data = new ArrayList<String>(); } MyParamters(String simpleStringToSplit) { this(); ... split string and fill data } public setMyParameter(String singleDataToAdd) { ... } } } > > Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 09:57:36 +0100 > > From: [email protected] > > To: mojo.codehaus.org [email protected] > > Subject: [mojo-dev] Strategy to change a parameter format > > > > Hy, > > > > I try to resolve https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MLICENSE-53 > > > > We have actually a parameter (includedLicenses) read as a String and then > > split (separated by comma), seems a good idea at the time it was written... > > > > But now after using it, seems better to use a list of array of String for > > this mojo parameter. > > > > Is there a strategy to change this configuration without breaking old-style > > configuration ? I can't find a nice solution > > (other than adding a new parameter includedLicensesList for example). > > > > If anyone has already done something like this, or have a great idea, > > please help :) > > > > BTW Happy new Year to codehauser :) > > > > thanks, > > > > tony. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > > > > -- Tony Chemit -------------------- tél: +33 (0) 2 40 50 29 28 email: [email protected] http://www.codelutin.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
