- if in <reports> the configuration applies to the report, which may be different to the mojo in <build/> if the plugin is executed there. So we need that separate section.


I think it's more usable if user configure reports only in <reports>.

Ah yes, I remember now. I was thinking that configuration in reports applied to both, but configuration in plugins only applied to execute (and could override the others). Does that sounds reasonable?

I think we need it because some reports need to execute some other mojo like compile for clover and jcoverage, and surefire for test report. We can have a similar lifecycle to the actual, and we put the site mojo in place of package

The problem with this is that most of the reports don't play together - eg if you were added both jblanket and clover to get some different coverage metrics, they might not work together. So I was still thinking each report would fork its own lifecycle, and rely on timestamp checking to not redo work unnecessarily (ie only run tests again if the source classes are different).

Cheers,
Brett

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to