Hello Pay, > yes, this is my required. > > But these two project have different package name.
So I've understood you correctly. But I'm currently not seeing double-generation with different package names as a compelling enough use-case to extend the code generation configuration in that area. I'm guessing that your use-case is pretty rare. Why do you need the different package names, when everything else is identical? Why not generate into something like com.example.common.mydatabase, package those resources in a common jar file and distribute that common jar file to *both* projects? Another way to look at this situation: If you're sure that you want two separate package names, then I'm pretty sure that over time, you will notice that you will want to slightly adapt the configuration of only one of the projects (e.g. includes / excludes). In other words, maybe, the fact that the two configurations are identical right now is a mere coincidence... Cheers Lukas
