Re: parallelise not overlapping tasks

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

Re: parallelise not overlapping tasks

Mickael Istria-2

> any way we move that topic forward beginning of next year?

I guess providing patches would be the best way ;)

I'm coming late in this discussion and I'm a newcomer on that list, so I
could miss context. This could relate to an effort we are doing in Eclipse
IDE (and Eclipse m2e) to run module builds in parallel. One question I have
is how do you know 2 tasks aren't conflicting? We didn't figure out a safe
way to know that in m2e, maybe I missed something?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Re: parallelise not overlapping tasks

Enrico Olivelli
What about having parallel 'planes' of execution?
Stuff like checktyle, rat, validation plugin may run in their own plane of
By default every existing plugin will be on a 'default' plane.
When the build starts we start a thread/fork a process for each plane used
by plugins declared in the pom.
Maybe we could define standard planes so that plugins will be able to
choose from a well know list of ids.

This approach is very naive, because it does deal with a real graph, but it
can be an easy step compared to a global refactoring/ introduction of
input/output declaration for each existing plugin.

This can be orthogonal to phases, each plane will execute every of the

Maybe I have a limited view of the Maven core model.
Hope that helps


Il gio 6 dic 2018, 15:35 Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> ha

> Mojos already have the ability to say if they are threadsafe, what do you
> see missing?
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau <> |  Blog
> <> | Old Blog
> <> | Github <
>> |
> LinkedIn <> | Book
> <
> >
> Le jeu. 6 déc. 2018 à 15:23, Mickael Istria <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> > I think there is a difference between scheduling tasks (one is after the
> > other) and assuming that 2 tasks that are ready can run in parallel.
> > Adding scheduling data would be helpful and get rid of the concept of
> > phases, for sure; but we also -and more importantly- need the existing
> > mojos to be audited and be able to declare whether they're thread-safe
> > before running them in parallel, and this sounds like a gigantic work.
> >

-- Enrico Olivelli