[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-7832?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17908736#comment-17908736
]
Herve Boutemy commented on MNG-7832:
------------------------------------
> For the others I think it is fine to require consumers to load the related
> plugin with extensions = true.
a plugin is generally to produce an artifact
now, a consumer will add a plugin to consume the artifact? strange
can we share a concrete example, because having the same discussion for years,
I feel we miss concrete vision of concrete case
> revert artifact handlers move to plugins
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Key: MNG-7832
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-7832
> Project: Maven
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Dependencies, Plugins and Lifecycle
> Reporter: Herve Boutemy
> Assignee: Herve Boutemy
> Priority: Major
>
> MNG-5697 proposed to move at the same time packaging mapping AND artifact
> handlers to packaging-oriented plugins
> packaging mapping is feasible, and can make sense: user configures a
> packaging plugin in his pom.xml to benefit from the full associated build
> lifecycle, why not
> but attifact handler is completely another beast: it's about consuming an
> artifact as a dependency, then not lead at all by the packaging of the
> project consuming the artifacts as dependencies
> https://maven.apache.org/ref/3.9.3/maven-core/artifact-handlers.html
> we need to split the 2 aspects:
> 1. finish lifecycle mapping definition to plugins, and remove at the end the
> definition from core, while learning users how to not any more benefit from
> implicit core definition
> 2. revert artifact handlers copy to packaging plugins, because they create
> confusion: artifacts will never be consumed with an artifact handler defined
> by an associated packaging plugin
> once someone finds something reasonable about artifact handlers, we can
> implement it later
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
