Re: Road forward for: New flag to verify the status
1 or 2 (there are iso from an user perspective imho even if help plugins looks natural) Rather not 3 for me by design and to keep it light Maybe 5: external self contained tool (always better to check a soft cause if tool cant run your tool is useless: here if mvn doesnt run you cant check anything and if maven runs help plugin is 100% designed for such additional checks). Le jeu. 9 mai 2024 à 15:53, Maarten Mulders a écrit : > On 26/04/2024 15:11, Juul Hobert wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > > It's been a while since changes have been made to MNG-6869. It adds > helpful > > functionality that is particularly useful when you're on a company > network > > and want to do some basic checks to verify if Maven is working. This will > > be helpful for a large group of users and helps in solving basic issues > and > > therefore could reduce false issues being reported about "Maven not > > working". The pull request unsatisfyingly ended up in a discussion where > > three flavors came across: implement it in core, in a plugin or in an > > extension. > > > > > > In summary the following arguments apply to the three different flavors: > > > > > > Move it to a plugin > > > > + Does not introduce extra complexity in core > > > > - Needs additional downloads and could fail before the basic checks occur > > > > > > Move it to an extension > > > > + Does not introduce extra complexity in core > > > > - Requires additional installation steps before it can be used (we could > > consider to ship the extension with Maven to circumvent that) > > > > > > Put it in core > > > > + Works without requiring additional downloads / installation steps > > > > + Can do all basic checks > > > > > > > > I like to know how the community thinks about this, so please reply > briefly > > with the following if you have a opinion about it: > > > > - "1" for plugin > > > > - "2" for extension > > > > - "3" for core > > > > - "4" drop the idea, close the ticket > > > > > > > > I'm planning to work on it on the 10th of May and would like to continue > > working on it then. I would appreciate it if replies are given before > this > > date. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Juul Hobert, > > > > also on behalf of Giovanni van der Schelde > > > > Hi, > > I think that having more troubleshooting capabilities for non-working > Maven installations would be very useful. So "4" is not an option for me. > > Given this purpose I feel that anything that doesn't ship with Maven by > default would defeat that goal. That drops "1" for me, and also "2" if > it had to be installed manually. > > So I would vote for "3", or for "2" iff that extension would be included > in the official Maven distribution. > > Thanks for your efforts, Juul & Giovanni! > > > Maarten > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
Re: Road forward for: New flag to verify the status
On 26/04/2024 15:11, Juul Hobert wrote: Hi, It's been a while since changes have been made to MNG-6869. It adds helpful functionality that is particularly useful when you're on a company network and want to do some basic checks to verify if Maven is working. This will be helpful for a large group of users and helps in solving basic issues and therefore could reduce false issues being reported about "Maven not working". The pull request unsatisfyingly ended up in a discussion where three flavors came across: implement it in core, in a plugin or in an extension. In summary the following arguments apply to the three different flavors: Move it to a plugin + Does not introduce extra complexity in core - Needs additional downloads and could fail before the basic checks occur Move it to an extension + Does not introduce extra complexity in core - Requires additional installation steps before it can be used (we could consider to ship the extension with Maven to circumvent that) Put it in core + Works without requiring additional downloads / installation steps + Can do all basic checks I like to know how the community thinks about this, so please reply briefly with the following if you have a opinion about it: - "1" for plugin - "2" for extension - "3" for core - "4" drop the idea, close the ticket I'm planning to work on it on the 10th of May and would like to continue working on it then. I would appreciate it if replies are given before this date. Cheers Juul Hobert, also on behalf of Giovanni van der Schelde Hi, I think that having more troubleshooting capabilities for non-working Maven installations would be very useful. So "4" is not an option for me. Given this purpose I feel that anything that doesn't ship with Maven by default would defeat that goal. That drops "1" for me, and also "2" if it had to be installed manually. So I would vote for "3", or for "2" iff that extension would be included in the official Maven distribution. Thanks for your efforts, Juul & Giovanni! Maarten - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] MDK, a Maven Plugin SPI example
Howdy, Did anyone look at or maybe even tried MDK? Thanks T On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 4:36 PM Tamás Cservenák wrote: > Howdy, > > Please take a peek at (and maybe try out) latest Maveniverse project, MDK: > > https://github.com/maveniverse/mdk > > This is like "proof of concept" or "demo" of what the Plugin SPI pattern > would be able to do. > > The idea is to broaden the support, and provide services even like > "overlaid staging", when staging would receive deployments from multiple > different sources (like for example OS native binaries). > > MDK is not yet, but will be integrated with Toolbox, to use it's sink > abstraction: > https://github.com/maveniverse/toolbox > > Have fun > T >
