On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Mark Hobson wrote: Just some thoughts:
The 'war' packaging _NEEDS_ a .war to be produced in case it will be used in an ear. If you replace the war packaging by 'exploded', then there is no artifact which will fail the install goal etc. People want to test their webapps without running the war:war goal since it is so slow. I can understand that. Perhaps a new lifecycle phase 'dev' or something, just before 'package', might be useful in this case. Another way would be to optimize the WarMojo to update the .war instead of recreating it each time. Then the war:war will always run, and you bind war:exploded to the package phase too. This will eliminate the performance penalty, I hope. -- Kenney > Hi all, > > To summarise the problem here, we need a way for plugins to depend on > other plugin's goals. The example use case is the tomcat:exploded > goal which needs to depend on war:exploded, and not war:war since this > has a performance hit. The tomcat:exploded goal depends on the > package phase, so we need to execute the package phase but in a > slightly modified lifecycle. > > We have the components.xml method which allows a new lifecycle to be > defined for a new packaging, but we need to keep the packaging as war. > We also have the lifecycles.xml method which overlays extra goals on > top of the current lifecycle, but we need to replace one goal in the > lifecycle with another. > > I'm no m2 lifecycle guru here, but a couple of ideas: > > 1) Allow multiple lifecycles per packaging. Does the lifecycle id > element not cater for this already? If so could a mojo inflict an > alternative lifecycle which it defines for the given packaging? > > 2) Override existing core lifecycles with ones supplied by the plugin. > I tried doing this but the core war lifecycle always took precedence. > > 3) The ability to unbind goals from phases in the lifecycle. There > doesn't seem to a mechanism to do this AFAIK? > > Any discussion appreciated. > > Cheers, > > Mark > > On 31/10/05, Mark Hobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 31/10/05, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I see - you are right, that was by design. > > > > Thanks for clarifying, it seemed that way but wasn't sure if I was > > missing something. > > > > > I'll have to think about the best path forward on this. Can we move it > > > to the dev list? > > > > Sure, I've posted to dev and cc'ed to user, in case people are > > tracking this. Just remember to un-cc user on reply.. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Mark > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Kenney Westerhof http://www.neonics.com GPG public key: http://www.gods.nl/~forge/kenneyw.key --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
