You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@maven.apache.org by Milos Kleint <mk...@gmail.com> on 2012/06/28 11:41:14 UTC

plugin annotations retention policy

Hello,

I'm in the process of rewriting the nbm-maven-plugin at mojo to use
the new annotations instead of javadoc tags. It appears to be working
fine, but I'm wondering why the retention policy is CLASS. Since it's
only used to generate the xml file, it could be turned into SOURCE and
the annotation dependency could be made "provided". Am I missing
something?

Regards

Milos Kleint

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: plugin annotations retention policy

Posted by Mark Derricutt <ma...@talios.com>.
On Fri Jul 20 07:59:03 2012, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:

> Can you provide a sample Clojure or Kotlin project to test descriptor
> generation?

I'll make up a sample project tonight and see if I can reproduce what I 
was seeing awhile ago.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: plugin annotations retention policy

Posted by Hervé BOUTEMY <he...@free.fr>.
yes, DefaultMojoAnnotationsScanner reads .class files, not their sources

Can you provide a sample Clojure or Kotlin project to test descriptor 
generation?

Regards,

Hervé

Le jeudi 19 juillet 2012 12:40:29 Mark Derricutt a écrit :
> On 28/06/12 9:41 PM, Milos Kleint wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I'm in the process of rewriting the nbm-maven-plugin at mojo to use
> > the new annotations instead of javadoc tags. It appears to be working
> > fine, but I'm wondering why the retention policy is CLASS. Since it's
> 
> First up I must say I love the new annotations, but one thing I dislike
> is that the plugin still seems to only parse java SOURCE files, I was
> hoping to be able to use these annotations to use Clojure, or Kotlin, or
> any other JVM language to write a plugin, but it seems not - unless I'm
> missing something as Olivier mentioned using ASM?
> 
> I'll have to give it another go....
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: plugin annotations retention policy

Posted by Mark Derricutt <ma...@talios.com>.
On 28/06/12 9:41 PM, Milos Kleint wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm in the process of rewriting the nbm-maven-plugin at mojo to use
> the new annotations instead of javadoc tags. It appears to be working
> fine, but I'm wondering why the retention policy is CLASS. Since it's
>

First up I must say I love the new annotations, but one thing I dislike 
is that the plugin still seems to only parse java SOURCE files, I was 
hoping to be able to use these annotations to use Clojure, or Kotlin, or 
any other JVM language to write a plugin, but it seems not - unless I'm 
missing something as Olivier mentioned using ASM?

I'll have to give it another go....

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: plugin annotations retention policy

Posted by Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>.
On 28 June 2012 11:33, Igor Fedorenko <ig...@ifedorenko.com> wrote:
> What about inheritance?

+1000 inheritance is one of the reasons we moved to annotations from
javadoc tags (though I agree that plugin.xml merging could solve that
somewhat, it's messy and ties us back rather than forward

> Other tools that may want to do something
> with the annotations?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Igor
>
>
> On 12-06-28 6:06 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>>
>> could be better maybe.
>> But means 1.6 required.
>>
>> Do you want to work on a branch with this change ?
>>
>> 2012/6/28 Milos Kleint <mk...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> why not use jdk's own annotation processors (which get compiled by
>>> javac are we save ourselves an extra mojo execution)?
>>>
>>> Milos
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> We use asm to collect annotations from compiled classes (so scope
>>>> compile )
>>>> Makes sense ?
>>>>
>>>> 2012/6/28 Milos Kleint <mk...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm in the process of rewriting the nbm-maven-plugin at mojo to use
>>>>> the new annotations instead of javadoc tags. It appears to be working
>>>>> fine, but I'm wondering why the retention policy is CLASS. Since it's
>>>>> only used to generate the xml file, it could be turned into SOURCE and
>>>>> the annotation dependency could be made "provided". Am I missing
>>>>> something?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Milos Kleint
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>> Talend: http://coders.talend.com
>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: plugin annotations retention policy

Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
Oh yes good point I missed that.
I essentially work on the anno mode to be able to inherits annotations
from reactors modules and/or dependencies.


2012/6/28 Igor Fedorenko <ig...@ifedorenko.com>:
> What about inheritance? Other tools that may want to do something
> with the annotations?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Igor
>
>
> On 12-06-28 6:06 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>>
>> could be better maybe.
>> But means 1.6 required.
>>
>> Do you want to work on a branch with this change ?
>>
>> 2012/6/28 Milos Kleint <mk...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> why not use jdk's own annotation processors (which get compiled by
>>> javac are we save ourselves an extra mojo execution)?
>>>
>>> Milos
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> We use asm to collect annotations from compiled classes (so scope
>>>> compile )
>>>> Makes sense ?
>>>>
>>>> 2012/6/28 Milos Kleint <mk...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm in the process of rewriting the nbm-maven-plugin at mojo to use
>>>>> the new annotations instead of javadoc tags. It appears to be working
>>>>> fine, but I'm wondering why the retention policy is CLASS. Since it's
>>>>> only used to generate the xml file, it could be turned into SOURCE and
>>>>> the annotation dependency could be made "provided". Am I missing
>>>>> something?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Milos Kleint
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Olivier Lamy
>>>> Talend: http://coders.talend.com
>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>



-- 
Olivier Lamy
Talend: http://coders.talend.com
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: plugin annotations retention policy

Posted by Igor Fedorenko <ig...@ifedorenko.com>.
What about inheritance? Other tools that may want to do something
with the annotations?

--
Regards,
Igor

On 12-06-28 6:06 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> could be better maybe.
> But means 1.6 required.
>
> Do you want to work on a branch with this change ?
>
> 2012/6/28 Milos Kleint <mk...@gmail.com>:
>> why not use jdk's own annotation processors (which get compiled by
>> javac are we save ourselves an extra mojo execution)?
>>
>> Milos
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> We use asm to collect annotations from compiled classes (so scope compile )
>>> Makes sense ?
>>>
>>> 2012/6/28 Milos Kleint <mk...@gmail.com>:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I'm in the process of rewriting the nbm-maven-plugin at mojo to use
>>>> the new annotations instead of javadoc tags. It appears to be working
>>>> fine, but I'm wondering why the retention policy is CLASS. Since it's
>>>> only used to generate the xml file, it could be turned into SOURCE and
>>>> the annotation dependency could be made "provided". Am I missing
>>>> something?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Milos Kleint
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Olivier Lamy
>>> Talend: http://coders.talend.com
>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: plugin annotations retention policy

Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
could be better maybe.
But means 1.6 required.

Do you want to work on a branch with this change ?

2012/6/28 Milos Kleint <mk...@gmail.com>:
> why not use jdk's own annotation processors (which get compiled by
> javac are we save ourselves an extra mojo execution)?
>
> Milos
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> We use asm to collect annotations from compiled classes (so scope compile )
>> Makes sense ?
>>
>> 2012/6/28 Milos Kleint <mk...@gmail.com>:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I'm in the process of rewriting the nbm-maven-plugin at mojo to use
>>> the new annotations instead of javadoc tags. It appears to be working
>>> fine, but I'm wondering why the retention policy is CLASS. Since it's
>>> only used to generate the xml file, it could be turned into SOURCE and
>>> the annotation dependency could be made "provided". Am I missing
>>> something?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Milos Kleint
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Olivier Lamy
>> Talend: http://coders.talend.com
>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>



-- 
Olivier Lamy
Talend: http://coders.talend.com
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: plugin annotations retention policy

Posted by Milos Kleint <mk...@gmail.com>.
why not use jdk's own annotation processors (which get compiled by
javac are we save ourselves an extra mojo execution)?

Milos

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> We use asm to collect annotations from compiled classes (so scope compile )
> Makes sense ?
>
> 2012/6/28 Milos Kleint <mk...@gmail.com>:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm in the process of rewriting the nbm-maven-plugin at mojo to use
>> the new annotations instead of javadoc tags. It appears to be working
>> fine, but I'm wondering why the retention policy is CLASS. Since it's
>> only used to generate the xml file, it could be turned into SOURCE and
>> the annotation dependency could be made "provided". Am I missing
>> something?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Milos Kleint
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Olivier Lamy
> Talend: http://coders.talend.com
> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Re: plugin annotations retention policy

Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
Hi,
We use asm to collect annotations from compiled classes (so scope compile )
Makes sense ?

2012/6/28 Milos Kleint <mk...@gmail.com>:
> Hello,
>
> I'm in the process of rewriting the nbm-maven-plugin at mojo to use
> the new annotations instead of javadoc tags. It appears to be working
> fine, but I'm wondering why the retention policy is CLASS. Since it's
> only used to generate the xml file, it could be turned into SOURCE and
> the annotation dependency could be made "provided". Am I missing
> something?
>
> Regards
>
> Milos Kleint
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>



-- 
Olivier Lamy
Talend: http://coders.talend.com
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org