Quantcast

Re: The maven-archetype-plugin paradox

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The maven-archetype-plugin paradox

Manfred Moser-4
I think you have done the right thing even if some users are not necessarily happy. The documentation about the new behavior is clear enough, but maybe it needs to be more explicit.

In either I would just keep the plugin at ASF and do minimal maintenance like you have been doing. If someone wants to step up and do more they can right here easily enough or via pull requests.

Donating the plugin does not really solve anything imho. If someone really wants to use the old setup they have many options (use old version, fork, help us).

Reverting seems the wrong choice given that the new behavior is more in line with common Maven idioms..

In a nutshell.. dont fret. Keep up the good work ;-)

Manfred

Robert Scholte wrote on 2017-05-08 10:38:

> So we have this plugin, which has been released lately as requested by the  
> community.
> It has been released as a 3.x, so it now requires Maven3 and with this  
> major release[1] we used this opportunity to break compatibility in case  
> there are parameters we don't want to use anymore.
>
> One of the things changed is the usage of the reference to the archetype  
> repository. The original implementation was based on Maven2 and wasn't  
> using all security features as available in Maven3. This also made it hard  
> to maintain.
> So for example, now it is picking up the artifact repository manager by  
> default, it'll use its credentials when required, etc.
> By removing these parameters is should also be easier to use this plugin  
> (less parameters = less chance of mistakes)
>
> So I think we made quite some people happy now that things are working  
> much more according to Maven default behavior. However, other have issues  
> to use the archetype. Sometimes it is because they are using deprecated  
> parameters (or use parameters which should have been removed as well),  
> others have a local setup which now requires to add the repository to  
> their settings.xml.
>
> I still think that ARCHETYPE-439[2] is valid, so I'd prefer not to revert.  
> Instead I hope we can find a solution which will fit better for the most.
>
> I can think of the following solutions:
> 1. Continue with taken decision and further improve usage without extra  
> parameters
> 2. Find somebody willing to maintain the plugin at ASF
> 3. Donate the plugin
> 4. Revert
>
> #3 is a serious option, because it seems that within the team there's  
> nobody willing to maintain the plugin, probably due to other Maven  
> sub-projects which have a higher priority.
>
> Any thoughts on this topic?
>
> Robert
>
> [1] http://semver.org/
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARCHETYPE-439
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The maven-archetype-plugin paradox

Hervé BOUTEMY
+1 to the general analysis

perhaps using previous release is not so easy since this plugin is used on
CLI, not in a pom.xml (in general), then you don't really choose which version
will be used when you launch "mvn archetype:generate": Maven magic does a
choice for you
The longer command line to choose version "mvn org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-
archetype-plugin:2.4:generate" is really so much harder to write

I don't know why we don't support "mvn archetype:2.4:generate": is it just we
didn't find any use case until now or there is some issue? And we could perhaps
even support "mvn archetype::generate" which displays available versions to
choose from, in case one does not remember which precise version he wants
(apart from "not the latest")

Regards,

Hervé

Le lundi 8 mai 2017, 19:47:08 CEST Manfred Moser a écrit :

> I think you have done the right thing even if some users are not necessarily
> happy. The documentation about the new behavior is clear enough, but maybe
> it needs to be more explicit.
>
> In either I would just keep the plugin at ASF and do minimal maintenance
> like you have been doing. If someone wants to step up and do more they can
> right here easily enough or via pull requests.
>
> Donating the plugin does not really solve anything imho. If someone really
> wants to use the old setup they have many options (use old version, fork,
> help us).
>
> Reverting seems the wrong choice given that the new behavior is more in line
> with common Maven idioms..
>
> In a nutshell.. dont fret. Keep up the good work ;-)
>
> Manfred
>
> Robert Scholte wrote on 2017-05-08 10:38:
> > So we have this plugin, which has been released lately as requested by the
> > community.
> > It has been released as a 3.x, so it now requires Maven3 and with this
> > major release[1] we used this opportunity to break compatibility in case
> > there are parameters we don't want to use anymore.
> >
> > One of the things changed is the usage of the reference to the archetype
> > repository. The original implementation was based on Maven2 and wasn't
> > using all security features as available in Maven3. This also made it hard
> > to maintain.
> > So for example, now it is picking up the artifact repository manager by
> > default, it'll use its credentials when required, etc.
> > By removing these parameters is should also be easier to use this plugin
> > (less parameters = less chance of mistakes)
> >
> > So I think we made quite some people happy now that things are working
> > much more according to Maven default behavior. However, other have issues
> > to use the archetype. Sometimes it is because they are using deprecated
> > parameters (or use parameters which should have been removed as well),
> > others have a local setup which now requires to add the repository to
> > their settings.xml.
> >
> > I still think that ARCHETYPE-439[2] is valid, so I'd prefer not to revert.
> > Instead I hope we can find a solution which will fit better for the most.
> >
> > I can think of the following solutions:
> > 1. Continue with taken decision and further improve usage without extra
> > parameters
> > 2. Find somebody willing to maintain the plugin at ASF
> > 3. Donate the plugin
> > 4. Revert
> >
> > #3 is a serious option, because it seems that within the team there's
> > nobody willing to maintain the plugin, probably due to other Maven
> > sub-projects which have a higher priority.
> >
> > Any thoughts on this topic?
> >
> > Robert
> >
> > [1] http://semver.org/
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARCHETYPE-439
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Loading...