So the pong is not as bad... Perhaps you are not at rotting shellfish levels... Still a bad smell though
On Wednesday, December 24, 2014, David Hoffer <dhoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > The 10 was just an example not something I have in my project. Replace 10 > with 2 and the same issue applies. > > -Dave > > On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Stephen Connolly < > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > This is a smell that you are doing something wrong. You probably want to > > compose everything with either a custom lifecycle or a better plugin or > > perhaps both. Having to chain 10 things together like that smells of > > abusing maven rather than playing to maven's strengths. > > > > Just an FYI though, if you have something that works for you and you know > > why it's not recommended but want to fight against the recommendations, > > that's your business ;-) > > > > On 23 December 2014 at 22:10, David Hoffer <dhoff...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > Right I understand that it's the plugin's goal that is being bound. > > > However it's not the case that you can do what I want with just that > > > approach (not w/o what feels like hacking). I want to use the normal > > maven > > > feature where plugins are executed in order of pom declaration (per > > phase) > > > and the feature of specifying the phase per plugin goal. > > > > > > E.g. Lets take a simple case. Plugin A has 10 executions where I need > > > Plugin B to run between the first 5 and the later 5. > > > > > > That configuration is simple if I can have multiple plugin declarations > > > because I can split plugin A into two declarations with a single > > > declaration of plugin B in the middle. They can all be bound to the > same > > > phase which is desired in this case. > > > > > > On the other hand if I can only have one declaration of A then I'm > forced > > > into gymnastics with phase binding. First I have to have different > > phases > > > for the first 5 and the later 5 goals and then to get plugin B to run > > > before the later half I have to carefully set this (pom location and > > phase) > > > so that it runs after the first set and before the later. I'm not > saying > > > it can't be done...but it feels very unnatural and because it forces > one > > to > > > pick extra normally-unneeded phases one might run into cases where its > > not > > > even possible. > > > > > > Am I missing something? > > > > > > -Dave > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Anders Hammar <and...@hammar.net > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > > > > > > You don't bind a plugin to a phase but rather a plugin's goal. So it > is > > > > possible to do what you want by having just one plugin declaration > but > > > two > > > > executions specified (for plugin A); one execution for goal A1 bound > to > > > the > > > > generate-resources phase and one execution for goal A2 bound to the > > > > process-resources phase. There's an example in [1]. > > > > > > > > The warning is a warning right now, it will still work. However, this > > > > support can be removed in future versions of Maven. > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-configuring-plugins.html#Using_the_executions_Tag > > > > > > > > /Anders > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 10:11 PM, David Hoffer <dhoff...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I have some questions regarding the duplicate plugin declaration > > > warning, > > > > > e.g. > > > > > > > > > > [artifact:mvn] [WARNING] > 'build.plugins.plugin.(groupId:artifactId)' > > > must > > > > > be unique but found duplicate declaration of plugin > > > > > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-xxx-plugin > > > > > > > > > > First is this a benign warning that can be ignored or is it really > > > > > something that is not supported (multiple declarations of the same > > > > plugin) > > > > > and that I really need to remove? > > > > > > > > > > If it's the later case this really limits the flexibility of > plugins, > > > let > > > > > me explain with an example. > > > > > > > > > > If my current build does the following in order: > > > > > > > > > > Plugin A - Phase: generate-resources > > > > > Plugin B - Phase: process-resources > > > > > Plugin A - Phase: process-resources > > > > > > > > > > By defining plugin A twice I'm able to use the most appropriate > phase > > > for > > > > > each instance of the plugin (btw, each instance has several > > > executions). > > > > > The key to the above is that plugin B has be be done between each > of > > > the > > > > > two instances of plugin A. > > > > > > > > > > If I had to only have one plugin A I'd have to set the phase in the > > > later > > > > > case to something later than process-resources (or I'd have to > adjust > > > the > > > > > first one to something earlier). Not only does it make it harder > to > > > > follow > > > > > the flow (later in the pom is more clear) but it sometimes forces > the > > > use > > > > > of poor phases as I have many other plugins in this pom > after/before > > > > these > > > > > that are tied to phases as well so it limits what can be chosen > here > > to > > > > > satisfy a no duplicate plugin rule. > > > > > > > > > > What's really the rule here regarding duplicate plugins? > > > > > > > > > > -Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Sent from my phone
