You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@myfaces.apache.org by ws...@apache.org on 2008/01/05 23:36:31 UTC
svn commit: r609231 - /myfaces/core/trunk/impl/pom.xml
Author: wsmoak
Date: Sat Jan 5 14:36:31 2008
New Revision: 609231
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=609231&view=rev
Log:
Recommend using lifecycle phase rather than plugin:goal syntax.
Modified:
myfaces/core/trunk/impl/pom.xml
Modified: myfaces/core/trunk/impl/pom.xml
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/myfaces/core/trunk/impl/pom.xml?rev=609231&r1=609230&r2=609231&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- myfaces/core/trunk/impl/pom.xml (original)
+++ myfaces/core/trunk/impl/pom.xml Sat Jan 5 14:36:31 2008
@@ -113,7 +113,7 @@
<profile>
<!--
- Whenever the full website is generated, the command
- - mvn -Pgenerate-site site:site
+ - mvn -Pgenerate-site site
- should be used. This will create the "tlddoc" directory containing
- nicely-formatted versions of the docs in the jsp taglib file, ie
- docs on all the available tags and their properties.
Re: svn commit: r609231 - /myfaces/core/trunk/impl/pom.xml
Posted by Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 5, 2008 3:54 PM, simon <si...@chello.at> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 22:36 +0000, wsmoak@apache.org wrote:
> > Author: wsmoak
> > Date: Sat Jan 5 14:36:31 2008
> > <!--
> > - Whenever the full website is generated, the command
> > - - mvn -Pgenerate-site site:site
> > + - mvn -Pgenerate-site site
> > - should be used. This will create the "tlddoc" directory containing
> > - nicely-formatted versions of the docs in the jsp taglib file, ie
> > - docs on all the available tags and their properties.
> >
> >
>
> Why would this be better?
>
> In order to deploy the site, "mvn site:deploy" is needed. So isn't using
> "site:site" for generating the site more consistent?
>
> I guess "site-deploy" could be used instead of "site:deploy", but then
> the link between "site" and "site-deploy" isn't as obvious to me as
> "site:site" and "site:deploy".
>
> And using "site:" makes it clear that the
> results are affected by the config of the "site" plugin; using
> "site-deploy" that isn't so obvious.
>
> Is the advantage of "site" that other things can be bound to a phase,
> but not bound to a goal, ie "site" can trigger multiple actions to
> occur?
Yes. It's confusing because 'site' is a lifecycle, a phase, a plugin,
_and_ a goal.
The 'site' lifecycle has four phases: pre-site, site, post-site, and
site-deploy. It works the same as the default lifecycle. When you
specify a phase, Maven runs everything bound to all the phases up to
and including that one.
So 'mvn site-deploy' will both generate and deploy the site, because
the site plugin's 'site' and 'deploy' goals are bound to the
appropriate phases.
One other thing I noticed is that the 'generate-site' profile seems to
have something related to including tlds in the jar. If it's doing
what it looks like on the surface, it probably belongms in the default
build or in a different profile. It would be strange to have to
activate the 'generate-site' profile in order to get the right
contents in the jar. (Now I'll wait for someone to dig in the svn
logs and point out that I'm the one who did it. :) )
HTH,
--
Wendy
Re: svn commit: r609231 - /myfaces/core/trunk/impl/pom.xml
Posted by simon <si...@chello.at>.
On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 22:36 +0000, wsmoak@apache.org wrote:
> Author: wsmoak
> Date: Sat Jan 5 14:36:31 2008
> <!--
> - Whenever the full website is generated, the command
> - - mvn -Pgenerate-site site:site
> + - mvn -Pgenerate-site site
> - should be used. This will create the "tlddoc" directory containing
> - nicely-formatted versions of the docs in the jsp taglib file, ie
> - docs on all the available tags and their properties.
>
>
Why would this be better?
In order to deploy the site, "mvn site:deploy" is needed. So isn't using
"site:site" for generating the site more consistent?
I guess "site-deploy" could be used instead of "site:deploy", but then
the link between "site" and "site-deploy" isn't as obvious to me as
"site:site" and "site:deploy". And using "site:" makes it clear that the
results are affected by the config of the "site" plugin; using
"site-deploy" that isn't so obvious.
Is the advantage of "site" that other things can be bound to a phase,
but not bound to a goal, ie "site" can trigger multiple actions to
occur?
Regards,
Simon