On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Currently, a <module/> element tends to correspond roughly to the > ant|maven|make definition of a project,
Really? At least in my mind it still corresponds to a CVS module or SVN directory. I really still see <project> in line with the ant|maven|make definition, conceptually, but we do have problems making it that because we'd need to run multiple targets. > It might make sense to make this > > <module name="ant"> > <project name="ant"> > <target name="bootstrap"/> > <target name="build"/> > <target name="dist"/> > </project> > </module> Yes, that would fit my mental model much better, but still, <module> does not correspond to an Ant build file here. > I'm tempted to do a radical remodelling of our metadata structure to > remove this kind of ambiguity, even going as far as having > conventions like project-name-is-file-name be gently enforced. Take a look at the nummber of jars created by the dist-ant project. No, I don't want to create one project for each of them, in particular since they all get created with a single Ant target. > Oh, ehm, I was even briefly tempted to turn our model into RDF but > there ain't that many good tools for RDF editing :-D > > Your comments? Feel free to go wild. 8-) Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
