2009/5/22 Jason van Zyl <jvan...@sonatype.com> > > On 22-May-09, at 11:29 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote: > > 2009/5/22 Jason van Zyl <jvan...@sonatype.com> >> >> >>> On 22-May-09, at 10:46 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote: >>> >>> >>> Then both goals are bound to the integration-test phase, as I would >>>> expect >>>> >>>> >>>> I think 2.x is a little lax. It should blow up and tell you that you're >>> trying to wire the mojo to a phase not specified in the mojo itself. If >>> it >>> is supposed to flexible wrt where it runs in the lifecycle then no phase >>> should be specified in the mojo. You're doing something the author of the >>> mojo did not intend. >>> >>> >>> Eh, I would not agree (other than in the case of the >> failsafe-maven-plugin) >> >> > A user generally wouldn't because you are never saddled with supporting the > resulting outcome. I am very much driven by the question what is truly > supportable. I want to move more toward what is definitely supported and > making extremely clear boundaries like finalizing classes, being strict > about lifecycle binding and anything else that makes it clear where you > become responsible for your use versus the community. This is my reasoning. > No user is ever going to support limiting a behavior they use. >
I'm not sure I quite understand what point exactly you are making here > > > I (as a plugin user) might have a perfectly good reason for re-binding a >> goal to a different phase... >> > > Do you? > > At that point you wander into the same situation we have with people > wanting to do anything they want. Then you combine N plugins wired to > phases other then what they intended then you've got undocumented, > unsupported use. I honestly don't think this benefits anyone. This variance > has a very real cost. If we had disallowed this to start with then you as > the user would have to talk to the author or make your own version. > > Some areas may be a little grayer then others but someone trying to bind a > mojo that is designated for the generate-sources phases to another phase > makes no sense. Every mojo should be that clear cut and if it's not then > that's a problem in and of itself. > As a mojo developer I am +1 on this As a mojo consumer I am -1 on this... but that might just be bad experiences from Maven 2.x. Maven 3.x with the build plan could convince me otherwise, but we have the issue of all the existing projects "out there" that are Maven 2.x Given that AFAIK 3.x is supposed to build them too I am curious how you intend to square the circle. -Stephen
