Maven 1.x Eclipse Plugin
  1. Maven 1.x Eclipse Plugin
  2. MPECLIPSE-63

dont want the hardcoded org.eclipse.jdt.core.javabuilder

    Details

    • Type: Bug Bug
    • Status: Closed Closed
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: 1.10
    • Labels:
      None
    • Environment:
      XP
    • Number of attachments :
      0

      Description

      There are cases that we dont want this plugin to be added org.eclipse.jdt.core.javabuilder automatically.

      The same for org.eclipse.jdt.core.javanature.

      Docu plugin does not need java builder and nature

        Activity

        Hide
        Dan Tran added a comment -

        I thought we want to use maven's POM to generate elipse's project file. This way we do not have maintain 2 different files.

        But I can see the impact on existing application which heavily depend on current behavior. This fix can break lots of existing maven projects.

        For now, I will override eclipse:genetate_project goal to either
        ignored and keep the existing .project, or remove the unneeded java buidler and nature after .project is generated

        Perhaps,we should document this unsupported use case. I am sure
        someone will hit this scenario again since it it not uncommon to
        have an eclipse plugin without source and it is natural to use
        this plugin the generate all plugins in one shot using multiproject:goal without worrying about the unsupported case.

        Show
        Dan Tran added a comment - I thought we want to use maven's POM to generate elipse's project file. This way we do not have maintain 2 different files. But I can see the impact on existing application which heavily depend on current behavior. This fix can break lots of existing maven projects. For now, I will override eclipse:genetate_project goal to either ignored and keep the existing .project, or remove the unneeded java buidler and nature after .project is generated Perhaps,we should document this unsupported use case. I am sure someone will hit this scenario again since it it not uncommon to have an eclipse plugin without source and it is natural to use this plugin the generate all plugins in one shot using multiproject:goal without worrying about the unsupported case.
        Hide
        Leo Fang added a comment -

        How about use case of an ear project. It also don't have src folder, and would like to remove the default java builder and nature.

        Show
        Leo Fang added a comment - How about use case of an ear project. It also don't have src folder, and would like to remove the default java builder and nature.
        Hide
        fabrizio giustina added a comment -

        Patch is attached to MPECLIPSE-80
        the javanature is not added if no source file is found, just like for the java builder.
        This is pretty common in multiproject parents, which usually only contains documentation.

        Show
        fabrizio giustina added a comment - Patch is attached to MPECLIPSE-80 the javanature is not added if no source file is found, just like for the java builder. This is pretty common in multiproject parents, which usually only contains documentation.
        Hide
        Juraj Burian added a comment -

        Please folks is there chance fix this problem or not?
        I see lot of reason to have javanature and javabuilder included optional.
        Namely, for example javabuilder is not necessary when project is compiled by another builder.
        Next, we have problems with the order in natures and buildSpec blocks in RAD.

        So I am thing that best way is add property like : maven.eclipse.defaultbuilder
        and do modification of project.jelly file like this:

        <j:set var="addDefaultBuilder" value="$

        {maven.eclipse.defaultbuilder}

        "/>
        <j:if test="$

        {addDefaultBuilder != 'false'}

        ">
        <buildCommand>
        <name>org.eclipse.jdt.core.javabuilder</name>
        <arguments>
        </arguments>
        </buildCommand>
        </j:if>

        Similar convention should be ok. for javanature ....

        Show
        Juraj Burian added a comment - Please folks is there chance fix this problem or not? I see lot of reason to have javanature and javabuilder included optional. Namely, for example javabuilder is not necessary when project is compiled by another builder. Next, we have problems with the order in natures and buildSpec blocks in RAD. So I am thing that best way is add property like : maven.eclipse.defaultbuilder and do modification of project.jelly file like this: <j:set var="addDefaultBuilder" value="$ {maven.eclipse.defaultbuilder} "/> <j:if test="$ {addDefaultBuilder != 'false'} "> <buildCommand> <name>org.eclipse.jdt.core.javabuilder</name> <arguments> </arguments> </buildCommand> </j:if> Similar convention should be ok. for javanature ....
        Hide
        fabrizio giustina added a comment -

        fixed in svn for 1.10

        Show
        fabrizio giustina added a comment - fixed in svn for 1.10

          People

          • Assignee:
            fabrizio giustina
            Reporter:
            Dan Tran
          • Votes:
            1 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            1 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: