Hi Igor, Igor Fedorenko wrote:
> More I think about it, less I like the idea of explicit order values. I > think this will be rather inconvenient to setup and error prone to > maintain. > > Initial setup will require some tooling to see executions in a > particular case with their default ordering values. Not the end of the > world, but somebody will have to implement the tooling and the users > will know how to find it. > > More problematic will be ongoing changes to the project itself > and its parents. When I need to add/remove executions in a parent, I > will have to review all projects that inherit from it to ensure order is > still correct. I work on a monster codebase with 600+ modules now, I > just don't see how this is workable. > > If executions are enabled through a profile, especially rarely activated > profile, configuring expected order becomes really cumbersome. > Think of -Prelease profile, that adds gpg mojo to package phase... > good luck troubleshooting why signed jars do not match their gpg > signatures during the release. > > I think we need to find a way to make before/after hints work. I don't > have a proposal yet, but I wonder, is this not the same problem as > ordering modules in the reactor? When there are no dependencies, modules > are built in their specified order, but the order changes when there are > dependencies. please have a look at the latest comments on MNG-3522, because adding executions in a profile causes some edge cases, which should be defined in advance. Regards, Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
