10:39 p.m.
Greg,
only internal m2e classes have been modified, but the archetype runtime
doesn't expose the same Maven classes anymore
(org.apache.maven.archetype.Archetype -> ArchetypeManager) so... it might
not even apply for a major version bump after all. that's debatable I guess.
Here's the extent of the changes, so far :
https://github.com/eclipse/m2e-core/compare/master...fbricon:archetyper-2...
If we can keep on with 1.6 with these changes, fine by me :-)
The downside of moving to 2.0 is a lot of m2e extensions would probably
need to be rebuilt if they use version ranges like [1.0, 2.0). That's
impacts definitely more adopters than the handful that depends on the
archetype API.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:02 PM, Greg Amerson <gregory.amerson(a)liferay.com>
wrote:
Hey Fred,
Just want to clarify some of the APIs that may be changing. In our
adopter product we have code that looks like this:
final ArchetypeManager archetypeManager =
MavenPluginActivator.getDefault().getArchetypeManager();
final ArtifactRepository remoteArchetypeRepository =
archetypeManager.getArchetypeRepository( archetype );
...
final List<IProject> newProjects =
projectConfigurationManager.createArchetypeProjects(
location, archetype, groupId, artifactId, version,
javaPackage, properties, configuration, monitor );
I'm assuming you mean some of these APIs will change in incompatible ways
in the proposed m2e 2.0? Well I guess ArchetypeManager was always marked
internal, so its fair game to be changed even if m2e doesn't go to 2.0. But
the IProjectConfigurationManager was "API", so is that one of the
interfaces that will undergo breaking change in 2.0?
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Jason van Zyl <jason(a)takari.io> wrote:
> Is there any downside at all to upgrading? If you've done the work and
> fixed all those issues I'm super happy you've moved us forward.
>
> Honestly I doubt anyone has tied into the guts of Archetype aside from
> you and really I think it's a small price to pay if the odd party is.
> You've updated the code and I assume made it easier to deal with so I only
> see upside.
>
> +1
>
> On Mar 18, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Fred Bricon <fbricon(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have an initial POC that uses maven-archetype-plugin 2.3, instead of
> the 2.0.alpha4 version (which was released in the 17th century, give or
> take).
> >
> > I checked it fixes the following issues :
> > - https://bugs.eclipse.org/459453,
> > - https://bugs.eclipse.org/424010,
> > - https://bugs.eclipse.org/394918,
> > - https://bugs.eclipse.org/374660,
> > - https://bugs.eclipse.org/405945 (on OSX at least),
> > - https://bugs.eclipse.org/415114,
> > - https://bugs.eclipse.org/429287
> >
> > Bugs https://bugs.eclipse.org/446657, https://bugs.eclipse.org/348893
> may or not be fixed (I can't test proxies)
> >
> > Most of these issues were automatically closed already after 1 year of
> inactivity. Doesn't mean the bugs are not there. My level of annoyance just
> reached a point where I'd like to take action now.
> >
> > The only problem with the archetype update is it will break 3rd party
> adopters (JBoss Tools at least) depending on the archetype API
> (package/class names changed between 2.0.alpha4 and 2.3). I don't plan on
> introducing a compatibility layer, not worth the hassle IMHO.
> > Given that I'm also in charge of the JBoss Tools integration, I'm fine
> with the impact :-)
> >
> > Getting the fix in will require m2e to bump its version to 2.0 (and
> open a bunch of CQs in ipzilla)
> >
> > I'd really like to get that change in for Eclipse Mars, if possible. Is
> it too late from a release plan standpoint (i.e. 1.6 -> 2.0)? PMC, fellow
> m2e committers wdyt?
> >
> > Fred
> >
> > --
> > "Have you tried turning it off and on again" - The IT Crowd
> > _______________________________________________
> > m2e-dev mailing list
> > m2e-dev(a)eclipse.org
> > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
> from this list, visit
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/m2e-dev
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder, Takari and Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> http://twitter.com/takari_io
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> First, the taking in of scattered particulars under one Idea,
> so that everyone understands what is being talked about ... Second,
> the separation of the Idea into parts, by dividing it at the joints,
> as nature directs, not breaking any limb in half as a bad carver might.
>
> -- Plato, Phaedrus (Notes on the Synthesis of Form by C. Alexander)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> m2e-dev mailing list
> m2e-dev(a)eclipse.org
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
> from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/m2e-dev
>
--
Greg Amerson
Liferay Developer Tools
Liferay, Inc. www.liferay.com
_______________________________________________
m2e-wtp-dev mailing list
m2e-wtp-dev(a)eclipse.org
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/m2e-wtp-dev
--
"Have you tried turning it off and on again" - The IT Crowd