+1 on this, with a caveat....it is a huge slippery slope that I think we ought to be really clear on...especially since Raphaël already took us down the slope some more :P
I am +1 for adding these in to address the immediate need with the understanding that that is it and revisit the issue for the next layer of complexity with some type of ordering maybe.. Providing a mechansim of strict execution ordering inside of a lifecycle phase could address this.. Custom lifecycle phases and goals declared in the pom that can be bound by plugins inside of the pom? (icky) Otherwise it is just too easy to keep adding on layers of pre and post processing :) my 2cents -- to address the axistools pluign, we have discussed this on irc before. it is completely reasonable to compile some classes, generate a wsdl off of those classes for something like a server side wrapping of webservices and then want to generate the client code off of that wsdl.. but what we decided at the time was that it was also ok to just embed that wsdl into the final jar and then in another project process that wsdl out of the dependency jar and generate the client code...perhaps that can be revisited, but the idea of having to support a compile -> generate sources -> compile cycle is not one that has been addressed completely. Especially since I have personally written 4 plugins that needed this type of cycle already, and just swiped code out of the compiler mojo to do it :P jesse On 2/17/06, Piéroni Raphaël <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 > > can you add a post-compile-generate-resources phase ? sometimes a resource > is generated (wsdl file) after the compile phase. > for example, the axistool plugin needs for the classes to be generated in > order to generated the wsdl files from them. and the plugin also try to > add > it to the resources. > > Raphaël > > > 2006/2/17, Emmanuel Venisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > +1 > > > > Emmanuel > > > > John Casey a écrit : > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'd like to add pre/post phases for all of the major lifecycle phases > > > that don't already have it. I'm starting to see cases where a > particular > > > packaging maps multiple mojos to the same lifecycle phase, and this > > > means we cannot control that phase through the old > suppress-and-augment > > > approach anymore. I'll give you an example: > > > > > > Say I have two mojos bound to the package phase, for lack of a better > > > place. The first takes the tested code, and assembles the directory > > > structure for the archive. The second creates the archive. If I want > to > > > replace the first step, I can add a 'skip' flag to it, but I *cannot* > > > bind a new mojo in its place; any new binding will be added after the > > > second step. Obviously, it makes no sense to prepare an archive > > > directory structure *after* the archive is created. > > > > > > This is not the first time we've discussed this sort of thing. We have > > > pre/post phases for setup and tear-down of integration tests, and > should > > > probably have something similar for unit tests...not to mention, > > > install, deploy... > > > > > > It doesn't seem like a good idea to continue addressing this problem > an > > > issue at a time in successive Maven releases. Why not make a > reasonable > > > concession to these use cases, and add pre/post phases to each major > > > lifecycle phase (those which are themselves pre/post phases are not > what > > > I consider major). > > > > > > I'd like to get this into 2.0.3, since it affects some work I'm doing > > > for a client. > > > > > > What do you all think? > > > > > > -john > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > -- jesse mcconnell jesseDOTmcconnellATgmailDOTcom
