How about asking also asking this question: should all the function
currently in packaging need to be extensions? What users want is to
define certain kinds of things as one big build.
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Sure, so this issue I think can be closed and another on
Sure, so this issue I think can be closed and another one created to warn
people about attempting to build an extension for use in the same build.
On Jan 19, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Robert Scholte wrote:
> Shouldn't we be able to detect such abuse and warn for it (maybe even fail?).
> Now it'll only
Shouldn't we be able to detect such abuse and warn for it (maybe even
fail?).
Now it'll only work if the extension-plugin is available in the local
repo, which is probably not what users will expect. The plugin will always
be one step/execution behind compared to the reactor build.
Robert
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> That extensions are required very early on in the build and too support them
> being produced in a build where they are additionally used would require
> contortions in the core and would also make supporting this in the various
> IDEs als
That extensions are required very early on in the build and too support them
being produced in a build where they are additionally used would require
contortions in the core and would also make supporting this in the various IDEs
also very complicated.
Is what I would say.
On Jan 19, 2014, at
On Sunday, 19 January 2014, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Jan 19, 2014, at 2:13 PM, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> > There are quite a number of users who want this functionality and the
> > corresponding ability to build a plugin from the same reactor as it is
>
On Jan 19, 2014, at 2:13 PM, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
> There are quite a number of users who want this functionality and the
> corresponding ability to build a plugin from the same reactor as it is
> consumed in.
>
Building a plugin in the same reactor works, building a plugin in a reactor
t
There are quite a number of users who want this functionality and the
corresponding ability to build a plugin from the same reactor as it is
consumed in.
Usually this is due to lazyness, ie not wanting to cut a release of a
plugin/extension just to make the build... Iow the use case were somebody
no, quite the opposite, I will applaud the decision :)
Milos
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> I don't think there are really any valid use cases for trying to build an
> extension where it is used in the same reactor. Extensions really need to be
> present before the re
