Le sam. 11 juil. 2020 à 23:01, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> a écrit :
> Le samedi 11 juillet 2020, 12:55:37 CEST Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit : > > Le sam. 11 juil. 2020 à 12:09, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> a > > > > écrit : > > > are really your plugin bindings so specific to your build that they > could > > > not be reused and need full ad-hoc definition? > > > > Think so > > > > > I imagined to provide composite packaging: > > > <packaging>war+front+living-doc+docker</packaging> > > > > > > in fact, "front", "living-doc", "docker" could provide secondary sets > of > > > reusable plugins bindings: each build would compose (with "+") based on > > > his > > > requirements > > > > Ok but "front" means already 5-6 different bindings at least > nice, that proves that this "sub-packaging" is useful: what would be the > bindings, please, to make this case very concrete? > > > and > > "living-doc" is per project by design (depends your stack, leads to > > different set of plugins). > let's dig a little bit: can you provide a few examples of stacks and > corresponding bindings, please? > perhaps "living-doc" is too generic, and should be more specific per stack > Jar+front=jar lifecycle + frontend:npm-install + frontend:npm-build Then you can add openapi.json generation with geronimo-openapi-maven-plugin You have the same with a war instead of a jar. Ablut living doc it can be several exec + openapi patch (either with a json plugin or something else like ant or even another exec or gplus:execute for what I saw). Add github-page or cms deployment, jira chabgelog generation (saw it with public and private plugins) and doc content itself can be home made (exec), jbake based, antora based (frontend but not the same config than build one) or even jekyll based for what I saw. Indeed npm can be yarn too and you can add npm-test and potentially npm-e2e to the combinations > > > > I envision a reusable solution can be a thing but it is way more complex > > than having these dynamic bindings which are straight forward on user > side > > so I prefer to let the user adapt maven to his need rather than the > > opposite. > > > > Also note that your proposal makes us moving one step forward but we stay > > blocked: how do you merge phases and plugin order? This can also depends > on > > projetcs and "+" only allows one order whereas order can be different > > between main and test plugins so you would need a complete dsl, not that > > easy compared to being explicit imo. > sure, this part is only one step > I need examples of such "merge phase" and order requirements to better see > what mechanisms would be useful > Start by what i mentionned just before, jar+frontend which can be simpkified by Compile-class+npm-run+test-java+npm-test Compile-class runs before test-java Npm-run runs before npm-test All combinations respecting that are used (if one phase generates code for the other using typescript-generator plugin or the opposite). > > > > > this could be injected by the LifecycleBindingsInjector [1] > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Hervé > > > > > > [1] > > > > https://github.com/apache/maven/blob/master/maven-core/src/main/java/org/a > > > pache/maven/model/plugin/DefaultLifecycleBindingsInjector.java#L63> > > > Le vendredi 10 juillet 2020, 19:33:35 CEST Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit : > > > > Looked a bit on how to impl this kind of extension and it would help > if > > > > maven wouldn't assume everything is hardcoded in components.xml (or > eq) > > > > > > or > > > > > > > if sisu would enable to reuse its plexus scanner which has a very low > > > > visibility today. It is also weird to not have access to the guice > > > > > > injector > > > > > > > in components and have to go through the plexuscontainer to lookup > > > > beans. > > > > > > > > As code often says more than words, here a small hello world showing > > > > that > > > > reusing this part of maven "core" is not that trivial: > > > > > > > > @Component(role = AbstractMavenLifecycleParticipant.class) > > > > public class CustomLifecycleExtension extends > > > > AbstractMavenLifecycleParticipant { > > > > > > > > @Inject > > > > private PlexusContainer container; > > > > > > > > @Override > > > > public void afterProjectsRead(final MavenSession session) throws > > > > > > > > MavenExecutionException { > > > > > > > > final Path root = > > > > > > > > session.getRequest().getMultiModuleProjectDirectory().toPath(); > > > > > > > > final Path configFolder = root.resolve(".extensions/custom"); > > > > > > > > final Path mappings = configFolder.resolve("mappings.xml"); > > > > if (Files.exists(mappings)) { > > > > > > > > final ComponentSetDescriptor componentSet = > > > > > > > > readAs(mappings, ComponentSetDescriptor.class, null); > > > > > > > > System.out.println(componentSet); > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > super.afterProjectsRead(session); > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > private <T> T readAs(final Path path, final Class<T> type, final > > > > > > > > String wrapper) { > > > > > > > > try { > > > > > > > > final ClassRealm container = > > > > > > this.container.getContainerRealm(); > > > > > > > final Class<?> converterType = container > > > > > > > > .loadClass("org.eclipse.sisu.plexus.PlexusBeanConverter"); final > > > > Class<?> > > > > typeLiteralType = container > > > > > > > > .loadClass("com.google.inject.TypeLiteral"); > > > > > > > > final Object converter = > > > > > > this.container.lookup(converterType); > > > > > > > return type.cast(converterType.getMethod("convert", > > > > > > > > typeLiteralType, String.class).invoke( > > > > > > > > converter, > > > > typeLiteralType.getMethod("get", > > > > > > > > Class.class).invoke(null, type), > > > > > > > > (wrapper != null ? "<" + wrapper + ">" : "") + > > > > > > > > new String(Files.readAllBytes(path), > > > > > > > > StandardCharsets.UTF_8) > > > > > > > > .replaceFirst("<\\?[^>]+\\?>", > > > > > > > > "").trim() + (wrapper != null ? "</" + wrapper + ">" : ""))); } catch > > > > (final Exception e) { > > > > > > > > throw new IllegalStateException(e); > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > Indeed it can't work since componentsetdescriptor uses > > > > > > plexusconfiguration > > > > > > > which is not instantiable but it shows the workarounds needed to just > > > > lookup plexus converter and reuse plexus xml binding. > > > > > > > > The code should just look like that IMHO: > > > > > > > > @Component(role = AbstractMavenLifecycleParticipant.class) > > > > public class CustomLifecycleExtension extends > > > > AbstractMavenLifecycleParticipant { > > > > > > > > @Inject > > > > private PlexusBeanConverter converter; > > > > > > > > @Override > > > > public void afterProjectsRead(final MavenSession session) throws > > > > > > > > MavenExecutionException { > > > > > > > > final Path root = > > > > > > > > session.getRequest().getMultiModuleProjectDirectory().toPath(); > > > > > > > > final Path configFolder = root.resolve(".extensions/custom"); > > > > > > > > final Path mappings = configFolder.resolve("mappings.xml"); > > > > if (Files.exists(mappings)) { > > > > > > > > final ComponentSetDescriptor componentSet = > > > > > > > > readAs(mappings, ComponentSetDescriptor.class, null); > > > > > > > > System.out.println(componentSet); > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > super.afterProjectsRead(session); > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > private <T> T readAs(final Path path, final Class<T> type, final > > > > > > > > String wrapper) { > > > > > > > > try { > > > > > > > > return type.cast( > > > > > > > > converter.convert(TypeLiteral.get(type), > > > > > > > > (wrapper != null ? "<" + wrapper + ">" : > "") > > > > > > + > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > String(Files.readAllBytes(path), StandardCharsets.UTF_8) > > > > > > > > .replaceFirst("<\\?[^>]+\\?>", "").trim() + > > > > > > > > (wrapper != null ? "</" + wrapper > > > > > > > > + ">" : ""))); > > > > > > > > } catch (final Exception e) { > > > > > > > > throw new IllegalStateException(e); > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > Once this part is fixed (using a custom parser) the next one is how > to > > > > contribute global components from an extension. > > > > > > > > I'll ignore the parsing - currently I have a custom sax parser but I > > > > hope > > > > to be able to drop it soon - it is quite easy to contribute back the > new > > > > mapping - note i dropped the lifecycle particupant which does not > really > > > > help there cause only contributing mappings when the extension is > > > > created > > > > makes sense: > > > > > > > > @Component(role = StartupContributor.class, instantiationStrategy = > > > > Strategies.LOAD_ON_START) > > > > public class StartupContributor { > > > > > > > > @Inject > > > > private MavenSession session; > > > > > > > > @Inject > > > > private PlexusContainer container; > > > > > > > > @PostConstruct > > > > public void init() { > > > > > > > > final Path root = > > > > > > > > session.getRequest().getMultiModuleProjectDirectory().toPath(); > > > > > > > > final Path configFolder = root.resolve(".extensions/custom"); > > > > > > > > final Path mappings = configFolder.resolve("mappings.xml"); > > > > if (Files.exists(mappings)) { > > > > > > > > final DefaultLifecycleMapping mapping = > > > > > > > > *loadOrParse(*mappings*)*; > > > > > > > > container.addComponent(mapping, LifecycleMapping.class, > > > > > > > > "my-mapping"); > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > Then we can put the new mapping as packaging and voilà :). > > > > > > > > If you have tips for the parsing it is welcomed otherwise I'll > continue > > > > > > to > > > > > > > play with my custom parser. > > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > > > > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> > > > > > > > | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performanc > > > e > > > > > > > Le dim. 5 juil. 2020 à 11:09, Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > > > > > a > > > > > > > écrit : > > > > > Here is a sample public build: > > > https://github.com/talend/component-runtime > > > > > > > > Interesting modules are - just listing one per type - if master > looks > > > > > weird tag 1.1.19 can be a fallback: > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > https://github.com/Talend/component-runtime/blob/master/component-starter-> > > > > > > > server/pom.xml 2. > > > > > > > https://github.com/Talend/component-runtime/blob/master/documentation/pom. > > > > > > > > xml 3. > > > > > > > https://github.com/Talend/component-runtime/blob/master/images/component-s > > > > > > > > erver-image/pom.xml > > > > > > > > > > Side note being some other - private :( - module do all the 3 > things > > > > > > in a > > > > > > > > single module - and indeed faking module for build constraints is > not > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > option. > > > > > > > > > > Hope it helps. > > > > > > > > > > Le dim. 5 juil. 2020 à 11:02, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> > a > > > > > > > > > > écrit : > > > > >> Le samedi 4 juillet 2020, 23:15:19 CEST Romain Manni-Bucau a > écrit : > > > > >> > 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... > > > > >> I like this approach: can we share a demo project to have a > concrete > > > > >> case? > > > > >> > > > > >> > 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. > > > > >> > > > > >> I suppose we all agree from very high level point of view: IMHO, > we > > > > > > now > > > > > > > >> need > > > > >> to dig a little more in detail on typical cases, with sample demo > > > > > > builds. > > > > > > > >> Then > > > > >> we'll work on solutions. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > 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). > > > > >> > > > > >> yes, looks like adding "sub-packaging"s for additional build > aspects > > > > >> (frontend, living doc, container, ...), taking care of eventual > > > > >> interactions > > > > >> between each one > > > > >> > > > > >> > 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). > > > > >> > > > > >> from experience, sharing a solution before sharing issues that the > > > > >> solution is > > > > >> expected to solve makes it hard to get consensus. > > > > >> You shared the high level issue: that's great. > > > > >> Now we must share sample builds. > > > > >> And work on solutions. > > > > >> I'm all in > > > > >> > > > > >> Regards, > > > > >> > > > > >> Hervé > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > 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-performan > > > > > > > >> c > > > > >> > > > > >> > > e > > > > >> > > > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > 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 > > > > >> > > > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
