[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [m2e-dev] [m2eclipse-dev] About lifecycle mapping extensibility
|
High-level description of the idea is on the wiki [1], and we are making
significant progress with implementation already so you can already
check the code. Do note new m2e-core git repo location, described in [2].
Speaking of locations, we probably should take this discussion to
m2e-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx list.
[1]
https://docs.sonatype.org/display/M2ECLIPSE/Project+build+lifecycle+mapping
[2] https://docs.sonatype.org/display/M2ECLIPSE/Developer+Guide
--
Regards,
Igor
On 10-12-28 03:27 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
On Dec 22, 2010, at 06:02, Igor Fedorenko wrote:
Fred,
I think having specific use case in front of us will make discussion
much more productive. Can you or somebody from JBoss Tools team provide
a sample project and explain how it builds on command line and what
should happen inside IDE? Don't worry about current or proposed m2e-core
API, assume m2e-core can do anything you want at this point.
btw. where is this proposed ? just on irc for now ?
/max
--
Regards,
Igor
On 10-12-21 07:16 PM, Fred Bricon wrote:
Hello World,
as you may or may not know, m2e-core's API will change in the project
configuration area, starting from v0.13 or later.
First of all, I must confess I haven't looked at the new lifecycle API
yet so feel free to bash me.
After talking to Igor and *_from what I understand_*, project
configurators will be bound to packaging type and/or mojo execution.
The lifecycle mapping API is not finished yet, but that would probably
mean if 2 plugins claim they need to configure the same packaging, an
error message could be displayed to the user, asking him to choose which
one to use, in the pom. That makes sense when these 2 plugins are
competing against each other and I'm all for it.
But if things go that way, in the case of WTP projects, if another 3rd
party plugin - say JBoss Tools- needs to enhance current JavaEE projects
behavior (adding JSF, Seam or more facets),
it would first break current m2eclipse-wtp/jbt integration, then users
would have to explicitely configure their pom.xml.
I really think having to modify the pom.xml to adapt to the IDE is a
wrong idea - IN THIS CASE -, when we could get it to work smoother.
It'd be better, IMHO, if 3rd party plugins could "extend" or "contribute
to" an existing lifecycle mapping.
<discussion>open</discussion>
regards,
Fred Bricon
--
"Have you tried turning it off and on again" - The IT Crowd
