desruisseaux commented on PR #160:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/maven-compiler-plugin/pull/160#issuecomment-2072026430
The use of Eclipse compiler would not be mandated. If no tool chain or
`compilerId` parameter is specified, the plugin uses whatever compiler is
returned by `ToolProvide
gnodet commented on PR #160:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/maven-compiler-plugin/pull/160#issuecomment-2071969652
> > remove plexus-compiler layer but what about other compilers?
>
> `javax.tools.JavaCompiler` is an interface. From a quick search on
internet, I think (but did not ve
rmannibucau commented on PR #160:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/maven-compiler-plugin/pull/160#issuecomment-2071704037
@desruisseaux +1 to drop plexus but also +1 to keep the current incremental
feature support by default - whatever name is given if incremental is not
considered accurate.
desruisseaux commented on PR #160:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/maven-compiler-plugin/pull/160#issuecomment-2071683447
> remove plexus-compiler layer but what about other compilers?
`javax.tools.JavaCompiler` is an interface. From a quick search on internet,
I think (but did not ve
olamy commented on PR #160:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/maven-compiler-plugin/pull/160#issuecomment-2071121026
> > I can tell you with 100% certainty that only tracking file timestamps
won't work and will be a bug farm.
>
> It is incomplete, but this is what the current plugin and
hunterpayne commented on PR #160:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/maven-compiler-plugin/pull/160#issuecomment-2071110405
I agree it is a lot of work. But you can't say this implementation will
work either. It will be a bug farm. Inner classes, enums, and interface
inheritance will all pr
desruisseaux commented on PR #160:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/maven-compiler-plugin/pull/160#issuecomment-2071095574
> I can tell you with 100% certainty that only tracking file timestamps
won't work and will be a bug farm.
It is incomplete, but this is what the current plugin a
hunterpayne commented on PR #160:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/maven-compiler-plugin/pull/160#issuecomment-2070978534
I can tell you with 100% certainty that only tracking file timestamps won't
work and will be a bug farm. You must know which .class files are generated
from which .java
desruisseaux commented on PR #160:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/maven-compiler-plugin/pull/160#issuecomment-2070967076
While incremental builds is important, my reading of the source code
inherited from Maven 3 suggests that in its current state, incremental build
has bugs causing the op
hunterpayne commented on PR #160:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/maven-compiler-plugin/pull/160#issuecomment-2070771711
Great, so we have 2 buckets to break these issues into. 1) issues with the
difference in behavior with javac (vs JDT) and 2) issues with the difference in
behavior with
cstamas commented on PR #160:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/maven-compiler-plugin/pull/160#issuecomment-2070735050
Today, if one needs _fully incremental (and build avoidance) with current
stable Maven 3.9.x, one should use Takari Lifecycle plugin_. But even then you
should use Eclipse JD
hunterpayne commented on PR #160:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/maven-compiler-plugin/pull/160#issuecomment-2070717803
I agree. I am asking if there is a way we can relax the
feature/requirement to make it easier to implement and maintain.
On Monday, April 22, 2024 at 12:07:46
cstamas commented on PR #160:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/maven-compiler-plugin/pull/160#issuecomment-2070692585
I agree that "incremental" is very important feature. My stance is that
_this implementation_ is bad/wrong.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To
hunterpayne commented on PR #160:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/maven-compiler-plugin/pull/160#issuecomment-2070683052
Incremental building is an important feature. If you need it, you need it.
Most projects don't but some very important projects do and they need something
like this the
14 matches
Mail list logo
