I think there are some little inconsistencies in vocabulary, causing wrong
analysis
there are 3 lifecycles: default, clean and site [1]
and packaging selects default plugin bindings for default lifecycle [2]
For the moment, I didn't dig sufficiently into everything to have every answers
and r
So what I am saying it that its only the packaging the defines which
lifecycle will be used.
You can't use files/paths.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven
Hello Barrie,
I know that :-) Our parent pom defines literally dozens of plugins,
configures them *and* adds a few profiles which change the configuration
and the plugins called on the existence of files, the environment (running
in Jenkins?) and I hoped I could split stuff a bit.
Regards Mirko
-
On 6 July 2013 15:39, Mirko Friedenhagen wrote:
> Hello there,
>
> is there a way to switch to a different lifecycle depending on e.g. a
> path/file etc? Or is the agreed way to just have another packaging?
The lifecycle for the pom comes from packaging.
The plugins that pom declares then attach
Hello,
I see that versions of plugins are either manageable in the pom or in the
lifecycle.
Now what about configurations of plugins? May these be hidden as well in an
extension/plugin?
I want to hide this because a lot of application developers look at our
company POM and shudder because of it'
Hello there,
is there a way to switch to a different lifecycle depending on e.g. a
path/file etc? Or is the agreed way to just have another packaging?
Regards Mirko
--
Sent from my mobile
Stephen, Russel,
thanks for your suggestions so far. I will take a look into the plugins you
mentioned.
Our operations department is using puppet and I did some tiny steps with. I
agree it feels a bit like Maven because it is declarative as well. Now Ruby
is IMO Python's perlish brother, so I am
On Friday, 5 July 2013, Mirko Friedenhagen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> now after some trial and error with custom packaging and lifecycles I
> ask myself whether I should proceed or do something completely
> different.
>
> What I want to achieve:
> - We have loads of web-applications (WARs with a homegrow
Hi Mirko,
Have you looked at the Cargo plugin?
http://cargo.codehaus.org/Functional+testing
- Russ
On Jul 5, 2013, at 4:29 PM, Mirko Friedenhagen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> now after some trial and error with custom packaging and lifecycles I
> ask myself whether I should proceed or do something co
Hello,
now after some trial and error with custom packaging and lifecycles I
ask myself whether I should proceed or do something completely
different.
What I want to achieve:
- We have loads of web-applications (WARs with a homegrown
configuration tooling)
- Some are single module projects, some
10 matches
Mail list logo
