On 3/31/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 31 Mar 07, at 10:07 AM 31 Mar 07, Raphaël Piéroni wrote: > Hi here comes a new proposition for the future descriptor. > > I made it the most simpler i can think. > > Please comment it. > I think it duplicates too much that's in the POM. The POM should be the model that used for Archetype wherever possible and an ancillary model should only be used where absolutely necessary. But as far as any sources, resources and any filtering what is done in the POM for the Archetype project is how the prototype generated from that Archetype should end up.
I don't think it is feasible in all cases to take out the information from the pom. For example, the archetype author may want to put some resources into the specified package, while others have already the correct place. The pom does not allow to express this. For filtering, one would like to have the control if a file is filtered during the project generation by the archetype. This is not expressed in the pom either. Another example are files pulled in by plugins. The archetype plugin would have to understand the behavior of these plugins if there is no additional configuration. I like Raphaël's proposal very much. It is easy to understand, flexible, and there are no surprises for the archetype author. The author is in control. If there is too much magic involved one has a very hard time to fix things when the magic goes wrong. Sparse documentation makes the situation even worse. Henry. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
