maybe renaming the pear packaging maven plugin

[Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>]

We have a maven plugin that does pear packaging; we use it ourselves in some builds.

It's maven coordinates are:

GroupId: org.apache.uima
ArtifactId: PearPackagingMavenPlugin

Maven, when running a specific plugin, specifies that plugin using the syntax:
mvn groupId:artifactId:version:goal

So to run the pear packager, people have to type:

mvn org.apache.uima:PearPackagingMavenPlugin:2.3.1:package

The page
http://maven.apache.org/guides/plugin/guide-java-plugin-development.html
describes several shortenings of this, based on conventions.

1) to run the "latest" version, leave off the version: mvn
org.apache.uima:PearPackagingMavenPlugin:package

2) If the plugin artifactId follows the naming convention of maven-$name-plugin
or $name-maven-plugin, then you can type mvn groupId:$name:version:goal.  An
email thread (see http://markmail.org/message/h3dit6ml4nrciysv ) says that the
first of these forms is reserved for the artifacts in the groupId of
org.apache.maven.plugins.  The 2nd was originally reserved (I think?) for the
groupId of org.codehaus.mojo, but also can be used for other groupIds.

If we renamed our plugin to follow this convention, to be the artifactId
uimapear-maven-plugin, then to run the latest version of this from the mvn
command line, you would type:

mvn org.apache.uima:uimapear:package

If this convention is followed, then with an additional entry in a local
.m2/settings.xml file that adds the org.apache.uima "groupId" to the list of
groupIds for the maven plugin lookup mechanism to use, you can reduce this
further to:

mvn uimapear:package

I think it is probably a good idea to change the artifactId to follow the
$name-maven-plugin convention.

Other opinions?  If we do change the name, is $name = uimapear a good candidate?
(This would allow future expansion of the functionality, although currently it
only supports a"package" goal).

The bad side effect is that it would affect existing users (if they currently
have scripts using the old name), when/if they upgraded.  I'm not sure the best
way to mitigate this...

-Marshall

Re: maybe renaming the pear packaging maven plugin

[Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>]

On 2/4/2011 2:33 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
> We have a maven plugin that does pear packaging; we use it ourselves in some builds.
>
> It's maven coordinates are:
>
> GroupId: org.apache.uima
> ArtifactId: PearPackagingMavenPlugin
>
> Maven, when running a specific plugin, specifies that plugin using the syntax:
> mvn groupId:artifactId:version:goal
>
> So to run the pear packager, people have to type:
>
> mvn org.apache.uima:PearPackagingMavenPlugin:2.3.1:package
>
> The page
> http://maven.apache.org/guides/plugin/guide-java-plugin-development.html
> describes several shortenings of this, based on conventions.
>
> 1) to run the "latest" version, leave off the version: mvn
> org.apache.uima:PearPackagingMavenPlugin:package
>
> 2) If the plugin artifactId follows the naming convention of maven-$name-plugin
> or $name-maven-plugin, then you can type mvn groupId:$name:version:goal.  An
> email thread (see http://markmail.org/message/h3dit6ml4nrciysv ) says that the
> first of these forms is reserved for the artifacts in the groupId of
> org.apache.maven.plugins.  The 2nd was originally reserved (I think?) for the
> groupId of org.codehaus.mojo, but also can be used for other groupIds.
>
> If we renamed our plugin to follow this convention, to be the artifactId
> uimapear-maven-plugin, then to run the latest version of this from the mvn
> command line, you would type:
>
> mvn org.apache.uima:uimapear:package
>
> If this convention is followed, then with an additional entry in a local
> .m2/settings.xml file that adds the org.apache.uima "groupId" to the list of
> groupIds for the maven plugin lookup mechanism to use, you can reduce this
> further to:
>
> mvn uimapear:package

If we were sufficiently *bold*, we could even name the plugin
"pear-maven-plugin", kind of analogous to the "jar" plugin. Then, the maven
command to package up a pear would be:

mvn pear:package

Which has a nice "ring" to it I think :-)

-Marshall
> I think it is probably a good idea to change the artifactId to follow the
> $name-maven-plugin convention.
>
> Other opinions?  If we do change the name, is $name = uimapear a good candidate?
> (This would allow future expansion of the functionality, although currently it
> only supports a"package" goal).
>
> The bad side effect is that it would affect existing users (if they currently
> have scripts using the old name), when/if they upgraded.  I'm not sure the best
> way to mitigate this...
>
> -Marshall
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>