Re: [DISCUSS] Effect of direct plugin invocation on model
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Brett Porter br...@apache.org wrote: What is the original use case that led to the bug? I'm wondering if it is sane and needs the runtime info, or if it actually should have just the POM as fully resolved from the repo. Cheers, Brett The code involved is at line 1797 in EclipsePlugin.javahttp://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven/plugins/tags/maven-eclipse-plugin-2.7/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugin/eclipse/EclipsePlugin.java?view=markup. The issue was opened in response to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MECLIPSE-633 . The plugin code is kinda suspect as I'm not quite sure why the EclipseMojo just can't rely on the injected parameter it is looking for rather than parsing its Xpp3Dom directly - guessing as some previous bug work around? Still, I don't think the project model should change this drastically unless there is a good reason and it is well documented. Meanwhile Jason is pushing for a release of the eclipse plugin and until we reach a consensus on what to do then maven-eclipse-plugin will remain not passing integration tests for maven 3. -Peter
Re: [DISCUSS] Effect of direct plugin invocation on model
On 09/01/2010, at 10:43 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote: Hi, in response to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4523, I would like to double-check that the behavior observed in Maven 2 is by design/intention and needs to be reproduced by Maven 3. It looks odd to me that the effective POM is a function of the plugin being invoked on CLI. I would have added this intentionally, and I think the behaviour is correct, but I agree it's confusing when reflected differently in the effective POM. From an execution PoV, I would still expect my pluginManagement blocks to apply to a plugin called on the command line that is not otherwise in the POM. However, if this makes things too complicated and we want to require a change to include the plugin in the POM as well as the management for it to apply - that is probably ok if it is documented. What Brian says is the right way to go from a plugin API position: On 10/01/2010, at 5:02 AM, Brian Fox wrote: I think there are several things a plugin should be able to get: 1) the original model as parsed from disk with no interpolation or inheritence 2) the effective original model 3) the model as executed - this would be where the lifecycle plugins get included. We didn't really have the notion of (2) before, the calls to project methods gives you (3). I haven't looked recently at how the models are handled internally in the project instance now, but support methods like getPluginsAsMap probably need to be deprecated at the project level and pushed into the individual representations of the model, with the API providing the 3 above? Then again, if we can do less implicit stuff in the future (say, if packaging became a mixin rather than a runtime modification of the model for the lifecycle), the 3rd may not be needed. I'd need to take a closer look to comment more here - hopefully these thoughts are helpful nonetheless :) Cheers, Brett -- Brett Porter br...@apache.org http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Effect of direct plugin invocation on model
Brett Porter wrote: From an execution PoV, I would still expect my pluginManagement blocks to apply to a plugin called on the command line that is not otherwise in the POM. However, if this makes things too complicated and we want to require a change to include the plugin in the POM as well as the management for it to apply - that is probably ok if it is documented. Please don't mix different aspects here. I have not asked how a plugin should be configured when it gets executed. My question is about how MavenProject.getModel() should look like. This is related but nevertheless independent from plugin configuration. Benjamin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Effect of direct plugin invocation on model
On 11/01/2010, at 5:47 AM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote: Brett Porter wrote: From an execution PoV, I would still expect my pluginManagement blocks to apply to a plugin called on the command line that is not otherwise in the POM. However, if this makes things too complicated and we want to require a change to include the plugin in the POM as well as the management for it to apply - that is probably ok if it is documented. Please don't mix different aspects here. I have not asked how a plugin should be configured when it gets executed. My question is about how MavenProject.getModel() should look like. This is related but nevertheless independent from plugin configuration. That's why I answered addressing both aspects :) If the execution side still works that way, that's great. It may still impact how you want the API to look for consistency. Sorry, so having trouble distilling my thoughts - something tells me that getModel() might need to return the 'runtime' model for most compatibility, and a more distinct method name (say, getResolvedModel()) is needed for the one that should always look the same, but I'm not convinced as in a green field I'd prefer the 'runtime' model be the 'optional' one and as I said before, maybe not even necessary. Also coming to mind is that -D and environmental factors from profile activation probably affect the model you get back as well? What is the original use case that led to the bug? I'm wondering if it is sane and needs the runtime info, or if it actually should have just the POM as fully resolved from the repo. Cheers, Brett -- Brett Porter br...@apache.org http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
[DISCUSS] Effect of direct plugin invocation on model
Hi, in response to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4523, I would like to double-check that the behavior observed in Maven 2 is by design/intention and needs to be reproduced by Maven 3. It looks odd to me that the effective POM is a function of the plugin being invoked on CLI. Benjamin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Effect of direct plugin invocation on model
2010/1/9 Benjamin Bentmann benjamin.bentm...@udo.edu: Hi, in response to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4523, I would like to double-check that the behavior observed in Maven 2 is by design/intention and needs to be reproduced by Maven 3. It looks odd to me that the effective POM is a function of the plugin being invoked on CLI. I agree that it looks odd. IMHO, the effective pom should be invariant. Benjamin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Effect of direct plugin invocation on model
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/9 Benjamin Bentmann benjamin.bentm...@udo.edu: Hi, in response to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4523, I would like to double-check that the behavior observed in Maven 2 is by design/intention and needs to be reproduced by Maven 3. It looks odd to me that the effective POM is a function of the plugin being invoked on CLI. I agree that it looks odd. IMHO, the effective pom should be invariant. It is far from invariant. I noticed in the debugger that the project model contained 4 plugins ( clean,site, install, deploy if i recall), none being the one explicitly called in Maven 3. In Maven 2, the only plugin in the model was the one being called. After that I thought I'd better share my findings... Benjamin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Effect of direct plugin invocation on model
Peter Lynch wrote: It is far from invariant. I noticed in the debugger that the project model contained 4 plugins ( clean,site, install, deploy if i recall), none being the one explicitly called in Maven 3. Those plugins are contributed by lifecycle mappings corresponding to the packaging of the project, i.e. their presence in the effective POM is induced by contents of the raw POM (just like with inherited plugins). In contrast, the CLI is something external to the POM. Benjamin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Effect of direct plugin invocation on model
2010/1/9 Peter Lynch pe...@peterlynch.ca: On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/9 Benjamin Bentmann benjamin.bentm...@udo.edu: Hi, in response to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4523, I would like to double-check that the behavior observed in Maven 2 is by design/intention and needs to be reproduced by Maven 3. It looks odd to me that the effective POM is a function of the plugin being invoked on CLI. I agree that it looks odd. IMHO, the effective pom should be invariant. It is far from invariant. I noticed in the debugger that the project model contained 4 plugins ( clean,site, install, deploy if i recall), none being the one explicitly called in Maven 3. In Maven 2, the only plugin in the model was the one being called. After that I thought I'd better share my findings... I would expect to see the plugins from the default lifecycle bindings, which for a pom project should be clean, site, install and deploy IIRC. I would not expect to see the plugin executed on the command line. I would expect to see the plugin executed from the command line to have been configured according to the def from pluginMgmt, but I would not expect to see it in the project model (i.e. in /project/build/plugins/plugin) unless it is explicitly listed in the pom. IMHO the Maven 2 behaviour is the bug and Maven 3 fixes it. -Stephen P.S we still await Jason to weigh in on this one though! ;-) Benjamin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Effect of direct plugin invocation on model
In 2.x the plugins you get from the lifecycle depend on which phase was executed, and it frankly drove me crazy trying to write the enforcer plugin rules. I think there are several things a plugin should be able to get: 1) the original model as parsed from disk with no interpolation or inheritence 2) the effective original model 3) the model as executed - this would be where the lifecycle plugins get included. On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/9 Peter Lynch pe...@peterlynch.ca: On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/9 Benjamin Bentmann benjamin.bentm...@udo.edu: Hi, in response to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4523, I would like to double-check that the behavior observed in Maven 2 is by design/intention and needs to be reproduced by Maven 3. It looks odd to me that the effective POM is a function of the plugin being invoked on CLI. I agree that it looks odd. IMHO, the effective pom should be invariant. It is far from invariant. I noticed in the debugger that the project model contained 4 plugins ( clean,site, install, deploy if i recall), none being the one explicitly called in Maven 3. In Maven 2, the only plugin in the model was the one being called. After that I thought I'd better share my findings... I would expect to see the plugins from the default lifecycle bindings, which for a pom project should be clean, site, install and deploy IIRC. I would not expect to see the plugin executed on the command line. I would expect to see the plugin executed from the command line to have been configured according to the def from pluginMgmt, but I would not expect to see it in the project model (i.e. in /project/build/plugins/plugin) unless it is explicitly listed in the pom. IMHO the Maven 2 behaviour is the bug and Maven 3 fixes it. -Stephen P.S we still await Jason to weigh in on this one though! ;-) Benjamin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
