Stephen, thanks for verifying this. My apologies for sharing that erroneous information. I think I confused that perceived--and nonexistent--limitation for the new strict rule introduced with IvyDE 2.0.0 beta1 where the source artifacts have to be declared in the ivy.xml to get picked up--regardless of whether they're in the same conf as the associated binaries.
I would still go with the "make source a type" approach rather than the "make source a conf" approach, but certainly the latter approach is perfectly valid. On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Stephen Haberman <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > Mitch Gitman wrote: > > > > MG: P.S. There's one assumption I've been working from when it comes to > > IvyDE, and I'm confident someone will be kind enough to correct me if I'm > > wrong in this assumption. It's that IvyDE will only allow Eclipse to > > automatically open the source for dependencies *if the source belongs to > > the > > same Ivy conf as the associated binary*. > > > > Perhaps IvyDE used to have that limitation, but currently I have a 3rd > party > library with separate default/sources confs and it is hooking up the source > just fine. > > - Stephen > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/sources-as-conf-or-type-tp26028446p26123274.html > Sent from the ivy-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
