Re: plugin annotations retention policy
yes, DefaultMojoAnnotationsScanner reads .class files, not their sources Can you provide a sample Clojure or Kotlin project to test descriptor generation? Regards, Hervé Le jeudi 19 juillet 2012 12:40:29 Mark Derricutt a écrit : On 28/06/12 9:41 PM, Milos Kleint wrote: Hello, I'm in the process of rewriting the nbm-maven-plugin at mojo to use the new annotations instead of javadoc tags. It appears to be working fine, but I'm wondering why the retention policy is CLASS. Since it's First up I must say I love the new annotations, but one thing I dislike is that the plugin still seems to only parse java SOURCE files, I was hoping to be able to use these annotations to use Clojure, or Kotlin, or any other JVM language to write a plugin, but it seems not - unless I'm missing something as Olivier mentioned using ASM? I'll have to give it another go - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: plugin annotations retention policy
On Fri Jul 20 07:59:03 2012, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: Can you provide a sample Clojure or Kotlin project to test descriptor generation? I'll make up a sample project tonight and see if I can reproduce what I was seeing awhile ago. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: plugin annotations retention policy
On 28/06/12 9:41 PM, Milos Kleint wrote: Hello, I'm in the process of rewriting the nbm-maven-plugin at mojo to use the new annotations instead of javadoc tags. It appears to be working fine, but I'm wondering why the retention policy is CLASS. Since it's First up I must say I love the new annotations, but one thing I dislike is that the plugin still seems to only parse java SOURCE files, I was hoping to be able to use these annotations to use Clojure, or Kotlin, or any other JVM language to write a plugin, but it seems not - unless I'm missing something as Olivier mentioned using ASM? I'll have to give it another go - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: plugin annotations retention policy
Hi, We use asm to collect annotations from compiled classes (so scope compile ) Makes sense ? 2012/6/28 Milos Kleint mkle...@gmail.com: Hello, I'm in the process of rewriting the nbm-maven-plugin at mojo to use the new annotations instead of javadoc tags. It appears to be working fine, but I'm wondering why the retention policy is CLASS. Since it's only used to generate the xml file, it could be turned into SOURCE and the annotation dependency could be made provided. Am I missing something? Regards Milos Kleint - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org -- Olivier Lamy Talend: http://coders.talend.com http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: plugin annotations retention policy
why not use jdk's own annotation processors (which get compiled by javac are we save ourselves an extra mojo execution)? Milos On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Olivier Lamy ol...@apache.org wrote: Hi, We use asm to collect annotations from compiled classes (so scope compile ) Makes sense ? 2012/6/28 Milos Kleint mkle...@gmail.com: Hello, I'm in the process of rewriting the nbm-maven-plugin at mojo to use the new annotations instead of javadoc tags. It appears to be working fine, but I'm wondering why the retention policy is CLASS. Since it's only used to generate the xml file, it could be turned into SOURCE and the annotation dependency could be made provided. Am I missing something? Regards Milos Kleint - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org -- Olivier Lamy Talend: http://coders.talend.com http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: plugin annotations retention policy
could be better maybe. But means 1.6 required. Do you want to work on a branch with this change ? 2012/6/28 Milos Kleint mkle...@gmail.com: why not use jdk's own annotation processors (which get compiled by javac are we save ourselves an extra mojo execution)? Milos On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Olivier Lamy ol...@apache.org wrote: Hi, We use asm to collect annotations from compiled classes (so scope compile ) Makes sense ? 2012/6/28 Milos Kleint mkle...@gmail.com: Hello, I'm in the process of rewriting the nbm-maven-plugin at mojo to use the new annotations instead of javadoc tags. It appears to be working fine, but I'm wondering why the retention policy is CLASS. Since it's only used to generate the xml file, it could be turned into SOURCE and the annotation dependency could be made provided. Am I missing something? Regards Milos Kleint - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org -- Olivier Lamy Talend: http://coders.talend.com http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org -- Olivier Lamy Talend: http://coders.talend.com http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: plugin annotations retention policy
What about inheritance? Other tools that may want to do something with the annotations? -- Regards, Igor On 12-06-28 6:06 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote: could be better maybe. But means 1.6 required. Do you want to work on a branch with this change ? 2012/6/28 Milos Kleint mkle...@gmail.com: why not use jdk's own annotation processors (which get compiled by javac are we save ourselves an extra mojo execution)? Milos On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Olivier Lamy ol...@apache.org wrote: Hi, We use asm to collect annotations from compiled classes (so scope compile ) Makes sense ? 2012/6/28 Milos Kleint mkle...@gmail.com: Hello, I'm in the process of rewriting the nbm-maven-plugin at mojo to use the new annotations instead of javadoc tags. It appears to be working fine, but I'm wondering why the retention policy is CLASS. Since it's only used to generate the xml file, it could be turned into SOURCE and the annotation dependency could be made provided. Am I missing something? Regards Milos Kleint - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org -- Olivier Lamy Talend: http://coders.talend.com http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: plugin annotations retention policy
On 28 June 2012 11:33, Igor Fedorenko i...@ifedorenko.com wrote: What about inheritance? +1000 inheritance is one of the reasons we moved to annotations from javadoc tags (though I agree that plugin.xml merging could solve that somewhat, it's messy and ties us back rather than forward Other tools that may want to do something with the annotations? -- Regards, Igor On 12-06-28 6:06 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote: could be better maybe. But means 1.6 required. Do you want to work on a branch with this change ? 2012/6/28 Milos Kleint mkle...@gmail.com: why not use jdk's own annotation processors (which get compiled by javac are we save ourselves an extra mojo execution)? Milos On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Olivier Lamy ol...@apache.org wrote: Hi, We use asm to collect annotations from compiled classes (so scope compile ) Makes sense ? 2012/6/28 Milos Kleint mkle...@gmail.com: Hello, I'm in the process of rewriting the nbm-maven-plugin at mojo to use the new annotations instead of javadoc tags. It appears to be working fine, but I'm wondering why the retention policy is CLASS. Since it's only used to generate the xml file, it could be turned into SOURCE and the annotation dependency could be made provided. Am I missing something? Regards Milos Kleint - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org -- Olivier Lamy Talend: http://coders.talend.com http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: plugin annotations retention policy
Oh yes good point I missed that. I essentially work on the anno mode to be able to inherits annotations from reactors modules and/or dependencies. 2012/6/28 Igor Fedorenko i...@ifedorenko.com: What about inheritance? Other tools that may want to do something with the annotations? -- Regards, Igor On 12-06-28 6:06 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote: could be better maybe. But means 1.6 required. Do you want to work on a branch with this change ? 2012/6/28 Milos Kleint mkle...@gmail.com: why not use jdk's own annotation processors (which get compiled by javac are we save ourselves an extra mojo execution)? Milos On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Olivier Lamy ol...@apache.org wrote: Hi, We use asm to collect annotations from compiled classes (so scope compile ) Makes sense ? 2012/6/28 Milos Kleint mkle...@gmail.com: Hello, I'm in the process of rewriting the nbm-maven-plugin at mojo to use the new annotations instead of javadoc tags. It appears to be working fine, but I'm wondering why the retention policy is CLASS. Since it's only used to generate the xml file, it could be turned into SOURCE and the annotation dependency could be made provided. Am I missing something? Regards Milos Kleint - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org -- Olivier Lamy Talend: http://coders.talend.com http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org -- Olivier Lamy Talend: http://coders.talend.com http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
