Le 3 juil. 2012 16:42, "Olivier Lamy" a écrit :
>
> 2012/7/3 Wayne Fay :
> >>> Am I on the right track? What would be the best practice?
> >> Perso I would use the lifecycle approach which is more IMFO in the
> >> maven supported approach.
> >
> > Is that your "frank" opinion or h... Didn't kn
2012/7/3 Wayne Fay :
>>> Am I on the right track? What would be the best practice?
>> Perso I would use the lifecycle approach which is more IMFO in the
>> maven supported approach.
>
> Is that your "frank" opinion or h... Didn't know you felt so
> strongly about it, Olivier. ;-)
hehe
F can hav
>> Am I on the right track? What would be the best practice?
> Perso I would use the lifecycle approach which is more IMFO in the
> maven supported approach.
Is that your "frank" opinion or h... Didn't know you felt so
strongly about it, Olivier. ;-)
Wayne
---
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> 2012/7/1 Thomas Broyer :
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Let's say I have a mojo that requires both a phase (process-classes)
>> and a goal (war:exploded) to be executed before it itself is run, am I
>> right to think that I should create a new custom lifecy
2012/7/1 Thomas Broyer :
> Hi all,
>
> Let's say I have a mojo that requires both a phase (process-classes)
> and a goal (war:exploded) to be executed before it itself is run, am I
> right to think that I should create a new custom lifecycle that binds
> the war:exploded goal to some phase after pr
