Anyone want to give this a quick read/opinion? :-)
-Richard
------ Original Message ------
From: "Richard Sand" <rs...@idfconnect.com>
To: dev@maven.apache.org
Sent: 8/1/2016 6:33:30 PM
Subject: opinions on MJAVADOC-451
Hi all,
I'd like to ask for opinions on
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MJAVADOC-451. Robert Scholte and
I have been discussing this off list and essentially disagree on it.
The request is very simple - to add a "skip" parameter to the
javadoc:fix goal. In my projects we are using the fix goal unattended,
i.e. with the parameter "force=true", as part of the regular build
lifecycle.
Most goals (including javadoc) that run in the regular lifecycle have a
skip option. Robert's position (and forgive me if I misrepresent this
at all Robert and please weigh in) is that javadoc:fix should not be
used in the lifecycle and that the goal should in fact have
requireDirectInvocation=true. He also pointed out to me that I can
create a profile to enable/disable the goal as an alternative.
My opinion is that, since the goal does not require direct invocation,
then running within the lifecycle has to be considered acceptable use
of the goal. And having a skip parameter adds 5 lines of code, is a
common and normal pattern used by many other plugins/goals, and allows
the goal to be used in this fashion without introducing even more
profiles.
I've submitted patches for this issue and also several other issues in
the javadoc plugin as I continue to work through getting the goal to
work well automated. Just pointing out that I'm not just asking for the
larger community to do stuff to make my life easier - I'm trying to
contribute as best I can and provide patches for what I uncover.
Best regards,
Richard
