I'm basically against this idea.
It can result in polluted jars very easily. Even if you
have 2 poms in the same dir, both specifying different source directories,
the files in target/ will overlap. the second executed pom will also contain
the files from the first executed pom.
Unless the target directory is changed too.
So you'd have to change _all_ configuration elements in both
poms that point to directories. It's much cleaner to split things up into
two trees.
I think I'll only vote +0/+1 on this feature if someone can show me a good
usecase
for this. And 'corporate policy' or 'I cannot change the repository structure'
aren't good arguments since they go against maven principles.
A module has always been a subdirectory tree with a pom; all of the
subdirectories
in the directory containing the pom belong to the module.
The java+dotnet in 1 module is just bad practice - they have to very distinct
packagings and cannot even have compile-time dependencies AFAIK.
src/java/
src/dotnet/
could become
src/main/java
src/main/dotnet
or even
src/m1/main/java/
src/m2/main/dotnet/
or
m1/src/main/java
m2/src/main/dotnet, which solves the problem.
-- Kenney
Brett Porter wrote:
On 07/06/2007, at 10:11 AM, Deacon, Brian wrote:
But does the Maven Jedi Council have any problem in principal with
allowing the <module> element to specify the name of the pom file?
Thought of it already someone has, mmmm?
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-1493
I'd actually be happy with treating a file reference in the manner you
described these days (despite what I said in the issue).
Cheers,
Brett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
