Maven 2.x and 3.x Site Plugin

make site reactor aware

Details

  • Type: Bug Bug
  • Status: Closed Closed
  • Priority: Blocker Blocker
  • Resolution: Fixed
  • Affects Version/s: None
  • Fix Version/s: 2.0-beta-5
  • Component/s: None
  • Labels:
    None
  • Number of attachments :
    0

Description

there are a few things I'd like to do to make the sites more workable:

  • it's good they can still build independantly
  • however, if built from the parent, it would be good to go into aggregation mode and pull in those separately built sites, do any dashboards and deploy together
  • some reports would aggregate themselves, as well as participate in the dashboards (eg javadoc)
  • I'd like the navigation to behave hierachically (sections of the parent navigation marked as inherited remain on the child sites)
  • this means that when building from independant projects they'd need to be able to locate the parent site descriptor. This could be tricky without a USD - should it fail if it is not a USD, or should the site descriptor be published/referenced externally somehow?

Issue Links

is related to

Bug - A problem which impairs or prevents the functions of the product. MSITE-54 In parent site, automatically create link to modules sites and vice-versa

  • Minor - Minor loss of function, or other problem where easy workaround is present.
  • Closed - The issue is considered finished, the resolution is correct. Issues which are not closed can be reopened.

Activity

Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order
Hide
Permalink
John Casey added a comment -

I'm willing to take this one on, but I'm not sure how we're approaching dashboards and/or aggregation of report results. Does each report have the option to aggregate itself, or run as an aggregator itself? If so, would they be knocked out of the site-driven aggregation? Do we have a single dashboard plugin that we're developing, or is that a generic term?

Also, would we be performing a merge of site descriptors, as in nesting sub-project site.xml contents under a menu item in the parent? Does it make sense to attach the site.xml as an attached artifact and manage parent references using artifact resolution?

Sorry to throw out so many questions, but this is not a side of maven I've ever used much (not even in m1), so if I'm going to get this one fixed myself, I'll need some help.

Show
John Casey added a comment - I'm willing to take this one on, but I'm not sure how we're approaching dashboards and/or aggregation of report results. Does each report have the option to aggregate itself, or run as an aggregator itself? If so, would they be knocked out of the site-driven aggregation? Do we have a single dashboard plugin that we're developing, or is that a generic term? Also, would we be performing a merge of site descriptors, as in nesting sub-project site.xml contents under a menu item in the parent? Does it make sense to attach the site.xml as an attached artifact and manage parent references using artifact resolution? Sorry to throw out so many questions, but this is not a side of maven I've ever used much (not even in m1), so if I'm going to get this one fixed myself, I'll need some help.
Hide
Permalink
Brett Porter added a comment -

I was thinking of holding this over until post-2.0 and discussing it at greater length when the pressure is off.

Show
Brett Porter added a comment - I was thinking of holding this over until post-2.0 and discussing it at greater length when the pressure is off.
Hide
Permalink
John Casey added a comment -

Agreed. I'll reschedule for 2.1.

Show
John Casey added a comment - Agreed. I'll reschedule for 2.1.
Hide
Permalink
Fabrice Bellingard added a comment -

We're using site aggregation and dashboards of m1 widely in my company, and we want to switch from m1 to m2 ASAP though.
If maven 2.0 final release is to be "stable with a feature set comparable to Maven 1.0" - as we can read in announcements, don't you think those functionnalities should really be part of the 2.0 release? My development teams got used to dashboards of m1, and I guess they would be quite upset not to have it the final release of m2.
I perfectly understand that you have lots of things to do for final m2 though. I just wanted to share with you experiences and wishes of lots of Maven users of my company.

Show
Fabrice Bellingard added a comment - We're using site aggregation and dashboards of m1 widely in my company, and we want to switch from m1 to m2 ASAP though. If maven 2.0 final release is to be "stable with a feature set comparable to Maven 1.0" - as we can read in announcements, don't you think those functionnalities should really be part of the 2.0 release? My development teams got used to dashboards of m1, and I guess they would be quite upset not to have it the final release of m2. I perfectly understand that you have lots of things to do for final m2 though. I just wanted to share with you experiences and wishes of lots of Maven users of my company.
Hide
Permalink
Brett Porter added a comment -

m1 didn't have any site aggregation... the multiproject links are already in place - this is to make it smarter. The dashboard is a different case.

The statement about Maven is really meant to reflect on the feature set of the core, rather than availability of plugins. About 75% of them are at the same level as m1, but dashboard is not one of them.

Show
Brett Porter added a comment - m1 didn't have any site aggregation... the multiproject links are already in place - this is to make it smarter. The dashboard is a different case. The statement about Maven is really meant to reflect on the feature set of the core, rather than availability of plugins. About 75% of them are at the same level as m1, but dashboard is not one of them.
Hide
Permalink
Brett Porter added a comment -

http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Sites+and+Inheritence

Show
Brett Porter added a comment - http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Sites+and+Inheritence

People

  • Assignee:
    Brett Porter
    Reporter:
    Brett Porter
Vote (4)
Watch (4)

Dates

  • Created:
    Updated:
    Resolved:

Time Tracking

Estimated:
8h
Original Estimate - 8 hours Original Estimate - 8 hours
Remaining:
0m
Remaining Estimate - 0 minutes
Logged:
16h
Time Spent - 16 hours