being able to bind to the front and back of a lifecycle would be absolutely
splendid


Brian E Fox wrote:
> 
> Yes it's binding the aggregator with @execute to a lifecycle that is the
> problem. There's nothing wrong with aggregators that are meant to perform
> some action from the CLI. The trouble is that everyone ends up making two
> goals, one @aggregator and one xxx-only goal that is without the
> aggregator.
> I know of too many instances where someone bound an aggregator executor
> goal
> to a lifecycle and ended up with n*n-1 recursive builds or other crazy
> behavior.
> 
> What I think we need is an annotation that says "execute up to this phase
> only if it hasn't already run" essentially a minimum phase execution.
> 
> There also needs to be a way to attach a plugin to execute before the
> lifecycle to influence things like inject dependencies and we also need a
> way to bind to the very end of a build for cleanup or metric collection
> types of things.
> 
> On 12/5/08 7:59 PM, "Brett Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> On 06/12/2008, at 9:37 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
>> 
>>> There's nothing presumptive about the fact that it HAS been
>>> deprecated in trunk for quite some time now. (since it was still
>>> called 2.1-snap)
>> 
>> Ok, you're right, when binding to the lifecycle (which admittedly we
>> are talking about here), though not generally.
>> 
>> Aren't the source of these problems when it is used in conjunction
>> with @execute? (Which is probably the more problematic annotation, I
>> was never happy with the way that was done).
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The aggregator is full of problems and usually leads to recursive
>>> builds when you bind it to the lifecycle. A complely new concept is
>>> needed to handle this use case.
>> 
>> But doesn't yet exist, so perhaps a warning is more appropriate than a
>> deprecation at this point. It does still work for the limited use
>> cases it was designed for (such as the Nick is referring to).
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Brett
>> 
>> --
>> Brett Porter
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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]
> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/What-will-replace-the-%40aggregator-MOJO-configuration--tp20825520p20873221.html
Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to