related to MNG-1701 ?
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Ryan Ovrevik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks! You reiterated my thoughts almost exactly.
>
> Forcing executions into arbitrary adjacent phases will work fine… it
> just seems ugly.
>
> thanks,
> rovrevik
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 3:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Ryan,
> >
> > So what you are trying to achieve is control the ordering of executions
> > within a single phase?
> > Ie you want:
> > Phase X:
> > (1) plugin A
> > (2) plugin B
> > (3) plugin A again
> >
> > Yes, I think this is not currently possible to achieve with <execution>
> > blocks.
> >
> > There is some discussion about providing better control over plugin
> > ordering for maven2.1. Maybe this needs to go on the list of use-cases.
> >
> > If the second execution of A was actually done via a different plugin,
> > then achieving this would be simple; the order of plugins in the pom is
> > the order of bindings to the phase. It does seem a little odd that
> > simply because step 3 happens to use a plugin that has already been used
> > in the pom that the mechanism for configuring it is suddenly radically
> > different (multiple execution tags, not multiple plugin tags).
> >
> > An alternative that stays with the executions approach could be to add
> > an extra property of an execution declaration that says whether to add
> > it to the "tail" of the plugin-list for the phase (default) or the
> > "head". Then for your case, first declare plugin B then mark the first
> > execution of plugin A "head" and the second "tail" (default). Perhaps
> > this could be done by something like:
> > <phase>integration-test;head</phase>
> > without needing a POM format change? This still
> >
> > Or perhaps an execution could be marked as "before the execution with id
> > X" which might be a more explicit way of declaring inter-execution
> > dependencies. Then plugin B could be declared as being "before" the
> > excution for (3).
> > Cramming this into the existing execution configuration elements doesn't
> > seem easy though. Maybe
> > <phase>integration-test;before=maven-A-plugin:execStep3</phase>
> > although that syntax is rather ugly...
> >
> > To me, the approach of simply allowing multiple plugin declarations
> > looks at least as simple as the above suggestions though. And can be
> > implemented (as you show) without POM syntax changes.
> >
> > But for now it seems to me that using different phases is your best
> > solution..and hoping that there are suitable phases in the lifecycle
> > available to be used. In your case, are pre-integration-test and
> > post-integration-test suitable?
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Simon
> >
> > (PS: I'm just a maven user, not a developer..)
> >
> > Ryan Ovrevik schrieb:
> >
> >
> > > Yeah, thanks, I know about using multiple executions.
> > >
> > > It is a shame that you have to put an execution in an arbitrary phase
> > > just to make the configuration behave (at least it seems that way to
> > > me). The use case that I have fits very nicely into
> > > generate-test-resources to export date from a source database and
> > > process-test-resources to import the data into the target database. If
> > > using additional phases is the way that it has to be… oh well.
> > >
> > > For what it is worth… The patch is trivial and has not broken any of
> > > the other maven projects that I have built with it.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > rovrevik
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:00 PM, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Put multiple <execution> blocks inside the <executions>. You would
> > >> probably need to use two phases though.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> > >> Ryan Ovrevik
> > >>
> > >> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:19 PM
> > >> To: [email protected]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Subject: Re: Configuration not selected properly when a plugin is
> > >> specified multiple times in the pom.
> > >>
> > >> I was specifying a plugin twice with-in a profile to control the order
> > >> of operations across two plugins with in a particular phase. The
> > >> scenario is as follows (simplified):
> > >> * Use sql-maven to drop and create a database.
> > >> * Use dbunit to import some data.
> > >> * Use sql-unit again to drop some columns on the imported data.
> > >>
> > >> If you do not specify the plugin twice, how would you do this?
> > >>
> > >> rovrevik
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> IIRC, model validation happens after inheritance and profile
> > >> injection, to ensure the project has every opportunity to fill in
> > >> missing sections.
> > >>
> > >> So, performing this sort of check in the model validator would be
> > >> appropriate. I added a check for duplicate dependencies recently,
> > >> IIRC, and this is similar.
> > >>
> > >> -john
> > >>
> > >> On Feb 21, 2008, at 10:26 AM, Brian E. Fox wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I was thinking this was across multiple poms (inheritance) but yes
> in
> > >> > the same pom that's not good.
> > >> >
> > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > >> > From: John Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> > Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:19 AM
> > >> > To: Maven Developers List
> > >> > Subject: Re: Configuration not selected properly when a plugin is
> > >> > specified multiple times in the pom.
> > >> >
> > >> > We should probably add some logic to the project/POM validator to
> > >> > detect duplicated plugin entries (by the plugin's
> > >> > groupId:artifactId:version) and fail the build with a useful error
> > >> > message. That would prompt users to consolidate multiple plugin
> > >> > sections that refer to the same plugin.
> > >> >
> > >> > -john
> > >> >
> > >> > On Feb 20, 2008, at 11:42 PM, Brian E. Fox wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Yep, I think this is related to it only picking the first version
> it
> > >> >> comes across, regardless of future version declarations.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> > >> >> Ryan Ovrevik
> > >> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 10:25 PM
> > >> >> To: [email protected]
> > >> >> Subject: Configuration not selected properly when a plugin is
> > >> >> specified
> > >> >> multiple times in the pom.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Only the first plugin configuration is applied when a plugin is
> used
> > >> >> multiple times within a profile. Following plug in configurations
> do
> > >> >> not use their specified configuration. Instead, configuration is
> > >> >> based
> > >> >> on what appears to be a combination of the configuration specified
> in
> > >> >> the first plugin configuration and some sort of default
> > >> >> configuration.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I searched the jira issues for a similar reported issue with no
> > >> >> success. The code does have a big comment about a "limitation in
> > >> >> modello" if that helps. It seems that this must be a known issue.
> > >> >> But,
> > >> >> if it is new, I will enter a new jira issue and supply the patch
> that
> > >> >> I came up with (It is small).
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I have observed this behavior using the sql-maven-plugin. I believe
> > >> >> that I have traced the problem down to the implementation of
> > >> >> MavenProject.getGoalConfiguration. The logic iterates over all
> > >> >> plugins
> > >> >> searching for plugins that match the specified group and plugin id
> > >> >> along with a matching execution id. The problem appears to be that
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> iteration is stopped at the matching group and plugin id even if
> the
> > >> >> execution id does not match. This results in all future plugin
> > >> >> definitions not having the opportunity for consideration.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Thanks,
> > >> >> Ryan Ovrevik
> > >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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]
>
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
