So you don't think there is ever a valid case for needing to run a mix of plugins (some same...some different) at the same phase in some order? Bernd understood my point, perhaps others can explain it better than I if they care to discuss this further. I'm going to let it go. My personal opinion is your making things too rigid for no demonstrated reason.
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
