michal.maczka wrote:
Yeap you right. And I guess that I am right too ... becouse I believe that, we alredy have a workflow of goals in Maven.
Yup, I agree.
so basically B should not update the path.
and in A (when needed)you should use something like:
B:getUpatedOutputPath()
which will "black-box" what B does to the output
Well, yes and no. This means that A /explicitly/ knows that it depends on B (which is where we are at now). I mean something more like, A does not know it depends on B, the framework does. The framework takes care of adding the output of B to the input of A.
This might sound like I'm suggesting a central file which describes the dependency of A on B - I'm not, I see the plugin.jelly as declaring two things - the processes for each goal, and the default connections between goals. So you can override the inputs, outputs (ie dependencies) without overriding the goal processing - this is pretty much what pregoal and postgoals do now.
This is partly my answer to Rafal as well - I mention 'the framework' above and mean pretty much the same as you do when talking about 'the session'. The difference is you're describing a passive session manipulated by the goals (roughly speaking - when they lookup/store data), I'm describing passive goals manipulated by the framework.
I totally agree with both of you that most of this is already there.
Anyway - if Jason had a penny for every time someone argued for changing how maven works....he'd say, "here's your penny back, give me a patch instead". I'll shut up.
-Baz
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
