> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 3:52 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Why no multiple locations of sources? ( was Re: > inter-project dependencies for the Eclipse plugin ) > > > > Suppose maven was designed so that we could say "goal A's > > input is the output of goals B, C, and D", instead of just "goal > > A depends on B, C, D". <source>s would appear as input-less > > goals, and most plugins would require output path properties, > > not input path properties. Just a thought. > > Make it a bit more explicit. A pipeline is not always a straight line, but > can have a junction. Take AspectJ for example: it has two inputs and one > output. The inputs are the sources and the aspects and the output is the > folder with the aspects woven in the sources. Define for every plugin the > inputs and the outputs, document a standard location, but give the > opportunity to override these. For the rest, nothing but applause for the > pipeline proposal. > > Ringo >
I think that this is already covered in Maven and not much more should be done But there are even worst cases when pipelining is useless. E.g. consider following use case 1) First run of Maven : I start XDoclet it creates some classes and updates java path for the rest of plugins (e.g. javac) 2) Second/Third etc.. run of Maven I don't want to regenerate one more time XDoclet stuff .. but I want to have the source previously generated visible in my path. The only way it can be handled properly is to make it on plugin level. So plugins like XDoclet should be equipped with some hooks for making such things and hide some details into which directories they will put their sources. Michal ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Pilkarski portal INTERIA.PL >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1703 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
