> -----Original Message----- > From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [...]
> >I feel that both your and mine solutions are hacks. > >First one requires to override goals, second binds two > plugins: site and > >multiproject. > >Before proposing my solution - which I hope will be the > temporary one - I > >thought about both options > >and I have chosen the one which was subjectively less harmful. > > > > > I don't see what you mean. This entails no change to the site plugin. > Yes, multiproject depends on site, but it already does. And I think it is quite bad thing. I was thinking along the lines that we should rather have something "site:multiproject" goal then "multiproject:site" as scattered functionality for generating sites makes it harder to understand what's going on. Note that only thing which is really good in multiproject plugin is that it have 3 standard properties which defines reactor setup: "basedir", "includes" and "exludes" and this is something that other plugins need to share (with possibility of overriding it per plugin/goal). With unified source tree in place this is something which can be made even simpler. >This more > closely emulates the features of m2's reactor, whereas goal > overriding > does not exist in m2. > I wouldn't be using m2 reactor as an ultimate refernce yet - it is at the momment almost identical to m1 reactor but it is not even yet passed to plugins and goal as the parameter and I am not sure if it will be ever the case. Or in other words: m2 reactor and its semantic is a work in progress. And discussion which takes place here is also applicable for m2. I think that it will be nice if ideas which are use in m2 would find they way back to m1 - but I am not sure if this will be always possible. Some things in m1 can be fixed without looking at m2 in a different way. One of the ideas which we are trying to promote in m2 is that plugins should not have any contracts with other plugins nor to use them directly - they should rather relay on maven core as mediator. This means that execution of other goals from within plugin's code is not something which is going to be as commonly used as it takes place in m1. This can possibly lead us to plugins like: "maven-site-mojo" and "maven-site-multiproject-mojo" where first one is independent from m2 and its reactor. This is something which is probably not likely going to happen in m1... > But regardless, the second solution seemed better where multiproject > type was used. If this is what you prefere I am fine with that... Michal --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
