Re: Dynamic phases proposal

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dynamic phases proposal

Romain Manni-Bucau
Hi Stephen,

I like the priority a lot and shortcut syntax - not having <priority> -
sounds a good compromise on user side (inline is always appreciated) and
impl side (no model change).

Romain

Le ven. 25 oct. 2019 à 21:02, Stephen Connolly <
[hidden email]> a écrit :

> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Dynamic+phases
>
> Thoughts?
> --
> Sent from my phone
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dynamic phases proposal

Tibor Digana
I like
<phase>package[2000]</phase>
because it solves my problems when I had to order plugins to reach exactly
this feature. Even impossible to do it if plugins use different phases,
then ordering of plugins would not help.
The syntax <phase>package[2000]</phase> will solve this!

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 9:36 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
>
> I like the priority a lot and shortcut syntax - not having <priority> -
> sounds a good compromise on user side (inline is always appreciated) and
> impl side (no model change).
>
> Romain
>
> Le ven. 25 oct. 2019 à 21:02, Stephen Connolly <
> [hidden email]> a écrit :
>
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Dynamic+phases
> >
> > Thoughts?
> > --
> > Sent from my phone
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dynamic phases proposal

Tamás Cservenák
In reply to this post by Romain Manni-Bucau
The fixed phases were one of the main strengths of Maven, and with this
automatism it could really be enhanced.

My dislike: the `before:goal` invocation is being "projected" to non
existent plugin invocation. This sounds like a hack. Could we clear that
part up?

T

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 10:23 PM Emmanuel Bourg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Le 25/10/2019 à 21:01, Stephen Connolly a écrit :
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Dynamic+phases
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Sounds interesting. You may want to forbid the before/after prefix on
> the deprecated phases (such as after:pre-clean).
>
> The name of the phases use to start with a verb, that would no longer be
> true with the proposed 'sources' and 'resources' phases. Since it isn't
> that common to invoke these phases directly from the command line maybe
> the longer name could be retained to preserve the consistency
> (generate-sources, etc).
>
> Emmanuel Bourg
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dynamic phases proposal

Tamás Cservenák
I am referring to this sentence:
"The logic of using :  in these prefix names is that it would expressly be
impossible to invoke these dynamic pseudo phases from the CLI as Maven will
interpret any attempt to invoke them as $plugin:$goal and look for a
maven-before-plugin  or maven-after-plugin".



On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 11:13 PM Stephen Connolly <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri 25 Oct 2019 at 21:41, Tamás Cservenák <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > The fixed phases were one of the main strengths of Maven, and with this
> > automatism it could really be enhanced.
> >
> > My dislike: the `before:goal` invocation is being "projected" to non
> > existent plugin invocation. This sounds like a hack. Could we clear that
> > part up?
>
>
> Could you explain what you mean? I’m not seeing what you are saying
>
>
> >
> > T
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 10:23 PM Emmanuel Bourg <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Le 25/10/2019 à 21:01, Stephen Connolly a écrit :
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Dynamic+phases
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Sounds interesting. You may want to forbid the before/after prefix on
> > > the deprecated phases (such as after:pre-clean).
> > >
> > > The name of the phases use to start with a verb, that would no longer
> be
> > > true with the proposed 'sources' and 'resources' phases. Since it isn't
> > > that common to invoke these phases directly from the command line maybe
> > > the longer name could be retained to preserve the consistency
> > > (generate-sources, etc).
> > >
> > > Emmanuel Bourg
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >
> > >
> >
> --
> Sent from my phone
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Dynamic phases proposal

Tibor Digana
I have a question to the old phases in CLI.
I will use the phase "post-site" in my examples.
$ mvn post-site

What did we expect from "post-site" and why we supported it in CLI?

From my point of view, it is a bad use. I used it as well because I
expected Maven to run "post-site" after
$ mvn site

Since my POM complicated and neede to perform some postprocessing of the
project page (Site), I used "post-site" in my plugins in my POM.
Due to the "post-site" was not triggered after "site" by the Maven ($ mvn
site), I had to force the whole lifecycle to run the build until the end,
means "post-site".

I was not in Maven 15 years ago, but I think the "post-???" phases were
dedicated to POM and not in CLI.
The thing that Maven works as it works, I considered the behavior as a bug
but I could not do anything about it and tried to workaround it in CLI.

So, altogether including this new feature means that we can frely remove
all post phases from CLI because they will run anyway when the main phases
are used in CLI.

On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 12:13 AM Stephen Connolly <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri 25 Oct 2019 at 22:48, Tamás Cservenák <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I am referring to this sentence:
> > "The logic of using :  in these prefix names is that it would expressly
> be
> > impossible to invoke these dynamic pseudo phases from the CLI as Maven
> will
> > interpret any attempt to invoke them as $plugin:$goal and look for a
> > maven-before-plugin  or maven-after-plugin".
> >
>
> We can put specific checks in to give friendly error messages, but
> fundamentally Maven will treat a CLI argument with one colon as a plugin
> goal to execute separate from the lifecycle
>
> We want the before and after phases to not be directly invoked via CLI or
> invoker, and because you cannot have a phase with this name, it’s safe to
> reuse
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 11:13 PM Stephen Connolly <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri 25 Oct 2019 at 21:41, Tamás Cservenák <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The fixed phases were one of the main strengths of Maven, and with
> this
> > > > automatism it could really be enhanced.
> > > >
> > > > My dislike: the `before:goal` invocation is being "projected" to non
> > > > existent plugin invocation. This sounds like a hack. Could we clear
> > that
> > > > part up?
> > >
> > >
> > > Could you explain what you mean? I’m not seeing what you are saying
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > T
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 10:23 PM Emmanuel Bourg <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Le 25/10/2019 à 21:01, Stephen Connolly a écrit :
> > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Dynamic+phases
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sounds interesting. You may want to forbid the before/after prefix
> on
> > > > > the deprecated phases (such as after:pre-clean).
> > > > >
> > > > > The name of the phases use to start with a verb, that would no
> longer
> > > be
> > > > > true with the proposed 'sources' and 'resources' phases. Since it
> > isn't
> > > > > that common to invoke these phases directly from the command line
> > maybe
> > > > > the longer name could be retained to preserve the consistency
> > > > > (generate-sources, etc).
> > > > >
> > > > > Emmanuel Bourg
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > --
> > > Sent from my phone
> > >
> >
> --
> Sent from my phone
>