Le sam. 4 juil. 2020 à 18:09, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> On Sat 4 Jul 2020 at 16:54, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Le sam. 4 juil. 2020 à 16:38, Stephen Connolly <
> > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> > > On Sat 4 Jul 2020 at 10:21, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, there are two points I'd like to emphasis:
> > > >
> > > > 1. I dont think we should wait for 2 majors to get that as a feature,
> > > would
> > > > be too late IMHO
> > >
> > >
> > > Well does my dynamic phases PR do what you need?
> > >
> >
> > Partly if you think to priority one, it moves the issue a bit further due
> > to priority usage which is not great in practice compare to names +
> > requires to use 100, 200 etc to be able to inject plugin between two
> others
> > in children with the project becoming more complex. Think we must have an
> > explicit control here even with complex hierarchies.
>
>
> If you need that much control then you’re doing something wrong.
>
> How often do you need more than 3-4 plugin executions in strict ordered
> succession?
>
All my projects not being libraries since ~7 years. Frontend is often 3
exec, living doc is often 4-5 exec, docker is often 3-4 exec too (needs
some computation steps for cds or build time precomputation things) plus
custom resources, git integration meta, custom artifact attachement, etc...
These are very common use cases today in the same build. It is key to keep
a single build orchestrator (mvn) for team sharing and CI
industrialization. Issue being each project set it up differently and
making it generic is often overcomplex (living doc can be jbake plugin or a
plain mvn exec:java or a groovy script etc... depending doc output and
reusability of the code+libs). With software lifecycle passing from years
to months we are in a more dynamic and changing ecosystem our beloved build
tool should align on IMHO.
> That sounds like a dedicated plugin use case
>
This is why i want a generic extension as solution, each project have its
specificities and standardizing it is hard and likely adds too much
complexity compared to let the user enriching default phases (can be a
merge of 2 packagings instead of a new one fully defined).
If I stick to plain maven and want a clean build without workarounds I must
write plugins+extensions for each of the apps - plugins and ext must be
reusable or not be IMHO, sounds not great whereas maven backbone is very
good, this is why I want to push it to the next step to keep a high quality
unique (in terms of #tools) build for projects.
I dont have big blockers to do it without patching maven itself so will not
spend much energy if idea is not liked but I hope maven tackles it some day
in a built in fashion (which means better IDE and ecosystem integration
even if personally I dont abuse of that).
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > 2. Pom model is based on inheritance whereas years showed composition
> > and
> > > > reuse is saner so IMHO it does not belong to pom but .mvn
> > >
> > >
> > > Your proposal would only work if all projects shared the same packaging
> > as
> > > Hervé pointed out that the lifecycle is pulled in based on packaging.
> > >
> >
> > No cause you define the packaging to use in the pom already - since
> maven
> > 2 IIRC - so you can define as much packagings as you want in .mvn. To be
> > concrete, it just enables to have an exploded extension in the project
> > instead of requiring it to be packaged as a jar. Does not reinvent the
> > wheel ;).
> >
> >
> > > What you probably want is .mvn/${packaging}/lifecycle.xml so you can
> > > override custom
> > >
> > > A bug you may encounter is where phase names are not common across the
> > > reactor
> > >
> >
> > Yep, build/extension must enforce common checkpoints (package, install,
> > deploy out of my head) for all modules. Not a big deal if validated
> during
> > initialize phase I think.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Le sam. 4 juil. 2020 à 10:19, Robert Scholte <rfscho...@apache.org>
> a
> > > > écrit :
> > > >
> > > > > Stephen had an idea for it in Model 5.0.0[1], and IIRC I still had
> my
> > > > > concerns.
> > > > > It is still a draft with a lot of ideas, that hasn't really been
> > > > discussed
> > > > > yet, because it was still out of reach.
> > > > > However, we're getting closer
> > > > >
> > > > > Robert
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/POM+Model+Version+5.0.0#POMModelVersion5.0.0-%3Cproject%3Eelement
> > > > > On 4-7-2020 09:03:08, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > I agree I mixed both in my explanation....cause they only make
> sense
> > > > > together for a build as shown by the pre/post recurrent request
> which
> > > > aims
> > > > > to enrich the lifecycle to bind custom plugins.
> > > > >
> > > > > Today projects are no more just about creating a jar - war are no
> > more
> > > > > about java etc... - most of the time (frontend, living doc, build
> > time
> > > > > generation, security validation, ....). Indeed you can force to
> bind
> > > > > plugins to existing phases but it is quite hard, unatural and
> rarely
> > > > > maintainable in time: whatever you do, you want a custom packaging
> > > using
> > > > a
> > > > > custom lifecycle (to be able to run separately phases of the build
> -
> > > and
> > > > > sometimes independently, mvn frontend not depending of mvn package
> or
> > > mvn
> > > > > compile would be neat but not required for me).
> > > > >
> > > > > So the extension i have in mind will handle both or wouldnt be
> > usable.
> > > > >
> > > > > About loosing the convention, after fighting for 7 years to not
> > respect
> > > > it,
> > > > > I think the ecosystem changed and we must accept it as bazel and
> > gradle
> > > > do.
> > > > > Does not mean we break ourself, we keep our default, it just means
> an
> > > > > application must be able to redefining its own lifecycle+packaging
> > > (which
> > > > > is a pair named a build ;)).
> > > > >
> > > > > Think we can't stack plugin on a single phase anymore, having 5+
> > > plugins
> > > > on
> > > > > pre-package is very hard to maintain and share in a team - plus it
> > > doesnt
> > > > > really makes sense on a build point of view.
> > > > >
> > > > > Indeed we can add phases as we have process classes after compile,
> > > > > prepackage before package etc.. but it stays arbitrary for maven
> > > project
> > > > > dev and does not reflect the agility projects take these days IMHO
> > and
> > > if
> > > > > done in our core delivery it would slow down most build for no gain
> > so
> > > it
> > > > > must be in user land IMHO.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope it makes more sense presented this way.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Le sam. 4 juil. 2020 à 05:28, Hervé BOUTEMY a
> > > > > écrit :
> > > > >
> > > > > > first: thanks for sharing
> > > > > >
> > > > > > from a high level point of view, the risk I see is to loose our
> > > > > > conventions.
> > > > > > But let's try and see before judging
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think there are 2 topics currently mixed:
> > > > > > - default lifecycle phases:
> > > > > > do you want to add or remove phases? [1]
> > > > > > - default plugin bindings:
> > > > > > clearly, you want to have specific default bindings. On default
> > > > > > bindings, as
> > > > > > they are defined per-packaging [2] (that's what is triggered
> behind
> > > > > > packaging
> > > > > > in pom.xml)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hervé
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> https://maven.apache.org/ref/3.6.3/maven-core/lifecycles.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [2]
> > > > https://maven.apache.org/ref/3.6.3/maven-core/default-bindings.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Le vendredi 3 juillet 2020, 09:20:25 CEST Romain Manni-Bucau a
> > écrit
> > > :
> > > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wonder if we already discussed defining the lifecycle in the
> > > project
> > > > > > (maybe
> > > > > > > in $root/.mvn).
> > > > > > > High level the need is to be able to change the default
> lifecycle
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > root pom without having to define a custom extension - in other
> > > words
> > > > > it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > about having a built-in extension.
> > > > > > > The typical need is to add a mojo in the default lifecycle (add
> > > > > frontend
> > > > > > > magement for ex) or replace some plugins by others (for example
> > > > > compiler
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > scalac plugin, surefire by spec2 plugin for a scala based
> project
> > > > > > etc...).
> > > > > > > The way I'm seeing it is to let the xml defining the lifecycle
> be
> > > put
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > .mvn/default-lifecycle.xml - I don't know if we want to use the
> > > > prefix
> > > > > > > (default here) as a reference you can put in the pom but at
> least
> > > > > default
> > > > > > > makes sense IMO.
> > > > > > > The lifecycle.xml itself would likely be extended to add some
> > > > > > precondition
> > > > > > > to each plugin (if src/main/frontend exists then add
> frontend:npm
> > > for
> > > > > > ex).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I know it is a quite common need I have and not something I
> would
> > > put
> > > > > in
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > custom extension because it is very "by project" and not
> > shareable
> > > > so a
> > > > > > > shared extension does not make sense and packaging a
> > > plugin/extension
> > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > single project is bothering for nothing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm planning to give a try with a custom extension in the
> summer
> > > but
> > > > > > > thought it can be worth some discussion there too.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wdyt?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > > > @rmannibucau | Blog
> > > > > > > | Old Blog
> > > > > > > | Github
> > > > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau>
> > > > > > > | LinkedIn | Book
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > --
> > > Sent from my phone
> > >
> >
> --
> Sent from my phone
>
