On 2/17/06, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This reply grabs bits from everywhere and summarises. > > Jesse McConnell wrote: > > Providing a mechansim of strict execution ordering inside of a lifecycle > > phase could address this.. > > We already have an ordering (by inheritence, with profiles last, > executions are in pom declared order within a phase). This is possibly > limited. I think one of our items for 2.1 was to make this easier to > specify and possibly order. But I'm worried about jumping in and out of > things in different POMs within a phase. It seems wrong.
Just for feedback's sake: so far this worked perfectly for my case without any thought about it. So I think any solution needs to be equally as good at working without custom configuration. Even though it worked, I was very unsure about whether it would, and wasn't confident in it. Is there detailed documentation on the current ordering anywhere? -- Stephen Duncan Jr www.stephenduncanjr.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
