AFAIK, The execution id refers only to a specific plugin, and each execution can only match a specific phase... so I don't see the need to tie the execution to a goal name, neither to the plugin name...
What I see as bind important is if the plugin is bound to multiple phases and you want to configure the different phases differently... At that point I think you're left with "breaking" the id as an id.... and you'd end up using a wild-card type matching, e.g. <id>lifecycle:jar:*</id> or <id>lifecycle:*:compile</id> or <id>lifecycle:*:*</id> All of which are useful, and do not require a schema change, and are rather unlikely to interfere with existing builds... but it feels ugly to me... and yet I'm proposing it! ;-) -Stephen 2008/11/9 Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > That's a bad example and what if you want to provide defaults for both? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Benjamin Bentmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 6:27 AM > To: Maven Developers List > Subject: Re: Default plugin execution id > > Jason van Zyl wrote: > > > I don't think anyone is generally going to type: > > > > default-execution-id > > As said before, I believe it's nice to distinguish executions of > different plugin goals to allow their separate configuration. So how > about appending the goal name like > > default-execution-compile > default-execution-testCompile > > ? > > > Benjamin > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > >
