On 9/5/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am sure that some of these names will change...
But the directory name should be the same as the artifactId... so
that its easy to see where the source for artifacts come from, and
because some maven plugins that work on sets of modules make that
assumption (like site plugin for example) when running.
This is a best practice with Maven... and I don't recommend moving
away from that.
Before we already had things like console-jetty making a jar named
webconsole-jetty-* and others too which only make it more difficult
to tell where these things come from.
I agree with this 100%. IMO, this is probably one of the biggest
benefits that Maven provides - the ability to look at an artifact
named foobar-baz-1.2.3.jar and you just know that it comes from the
foobar-baz directory. This makes navigating the directory structure
much easier. The last thing I want to see us do is bury everything
about the way Geronimo is built in the buid tool configuration. This
still happens with many, many projects (both closed and open source)
that use Ant and it drives me insane. Why should I have to dig into an
Ant build.xml file just to figure out how a particular artifact is
produced!? I want the ability to see this at a glance.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL
PROTECTED]&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
Castor - http://castor.org/
