In any case, you're talking about new functionality...wouldn't it be better to redesign the lifecycle subsystem somehow so phase names don't have to be globally unique? (I'm not saying that would be simple, but I'm guessing it would be less complex for the user.)
-john On 4/4/07, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think this phase couldn't be invoked from the cli because obviously it wouldn't know which to pick. An alternative solution to all this would be to allow @phase to accept multiples and allow a single execution to be bound to multpile phases. Then we could bind to validate,pre-site. -----Original Message----- From: Eric Redmond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 11:08 AM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: [discuss] add validate/initialize to site lifecycle How would this phase work, in a practical manner? If someone runs the phase, which lifecycle gets executed? Or are you proposing a phase that cannot be explicitly called... like some sort of phase interface? Eric On 4/4/07, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Right, so we're looking at a 2.1+ thing here. Adding them but changing > the name defeats the whole purpose. Thanks for the info. > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 10:21 AM > To: Maven Developers List > Subject: Re: [discuss] add validate/initialize to site lifecycle > > Max is right, if you add these phases to the site lifecycle (fine by > me, I suppose), they'll have to have different names. This is really > unfortunate, but that's the only way they can be incorporated into > 2.0.x, or 2.1 (without some redesign). > > -john > > On 4/4/07, Max Bowsher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Brian E. Fox wrote: > > > As Jerome pointed out earlier today on the enforcer thread, it > > > would > > > > be nice to be able to bind some plugins like the enforcer to a > > > phase > > > > that affects both default and site. After all, if you don't want > > > to support some Maven/Jdk/Os/other version, chances are that > > > applies to > > > > sites and reports as well (especially since they might fork to > > > compile aka cobertura etc). > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there any drawback to adding one or both of those to the > > > lifecycle, and if so, what about a new one for both? (although I > > > suspect this is what validate was really intended for) > > > > Maven seems to require that phases be globally unique across all > > lifecycles. DefaultLifecycleExecutor specifically tests for this and > > throws a LifecycleExecutionException if a violation is detected. > > > > Max. > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For > additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Eric Redmond http://codehaus.org/~eredmond --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
