Le lun. 6 mai 2024 à 14:38, Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> a écrit :
> lapsus: as in maven-core and maven-model SHOULD NOT share the same release > lifecycle. They DO currently. > Which implies that we have as many maven-model artifacts released so far as > many maven, but many of them are binary equivalent to each other. > What's the drawback with that ? It's much easier to handle for both the developper side and for the consumer side (they only have to upgrade a single version instead of two). I'm quite on the opposite side, and I'd much rather simplify our release cycles rather than going with one repo per jar... > That's all I wanted to prevent. Am fine with having SPI next to the plugin > as well... > > T > > On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 2:36 PM Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> > wrote: > > > Pretty much the same story as Maven models vs Maven "core" (maven-core in > > 3.x or api-imple in 4).... they don't share the same release lifecycle. > > > > SPI is not to be changed often, while we do patch releases of the > plugins. > > Am not saying we cannot keep SPI along with Plugins, I am just saying > that > > it's pointless: we will have many releases of the same thing. > > > > On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 2:31 PM Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > >> Le lun. 6 mai 2024 à 14:29, Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> a > >> écrit : > >> > >> > Howdy, > >> > > >> > IIUC you have a problem with designated G? > >> > As if so, that is really irrelevant. Point is that SPI cannot reside > >> with > >> > Plugin, as they share totally different release cycles. > >> > > >> > >> Why ? > >> > >> > >> > > >> > Second, you mention a plugin dep, that is hence available in the same > >> scope > >> > as the plugin itself... which is obviously not enough in some cases. > >> > > >> > T > >> > > >> > On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 2:25 PM Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hi Tamas, > >> > > > >> > > I kind of fail to see why org.apache.maven.maven-plugin-spi makes > >> sense > >> > > instead of org.apache.maven.plugins.$pluginArtifact-spi ? > >> > > My understanding is that we already have that since any plugin can > >> > define a > >> > > specific SPI in its code and get it injected from a plugin dep using > >> its > >> > > <configuration> block - exactly like shade plugin references its > >> > > transformers to be concrete. > >> > > So for me nothing to create nor modify to get an old feature. > >> > > > >> > > 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-performance > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Le lun. 6 mai 2024 à 14:08, Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> a > >> > écrit > >> > > : > >> > > > >> > > > Howdy, > >> > > > > >> > > > I'd like to create a new ASF Maven git repo "maven-plugin-spi". > >> > > > > >> > > > This repository would hold SPIs as explained here > >> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Maven+Plugin+SPI > >> > > > > >> > > > Designated G: "org.apache.maven.maven-plugin-spi" > >> > > > > >> > > > For now, we have two candidates to apply SPI pattern: > >> > > > * maven-deploy-plugin (yet to be added) > >> > > > * maven-gpg-plugin (already have it, but in unusable form, as it > >> does > >> > not > >> > > > follow pattern from wiki) > >> > > > > >> > > > Example GAs: > >> > > > org.apache.maven.maven-plugin-spi:maven-deploy-spi > >> > > > org.apache.maven.maven-plugin-spi:maven-gpg-spi > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks > >> > > > T > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> ------------------------ > >> Guillaume Nodet > >> > > > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet
