On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The current situation, where the top-level pom points down but the others > don't point back up through it, is not a pattern I'm familiar with. I have > learned by very hard experience that the maven-site-plugin is very very hard > to make work if the parent structure isn't just the inverse of the module > structure. For what's it's worth, I'm used to having a top-level that's not a parent, specifically for the case where the assemblies are in the top-level pom and ensuring that they are executed after the rest of the modules are built. I haven't messed with the site plugin very much, so I can't confirm issues that may exist with it when a project structured this way. Benson, could you elaborate? I was able to generate sites for each of the modules in a non-release:prepare/release:perform setting but at present they don't add much value over the javadoc so I opted for including only those in the releases instead. I have never used the structure Benson proposes (separate distribution module, top-as-parent) but it would be interesting to give it a whirl and see how well it works. > So, in spite of my fondness for the CXF pattern, I've concluded that the > simple 'modules down, parents up' structure is preferable when possible. What pattern does CXF use? > The only minor issue is that the fully fancy maven-workspace-setup stuff has > to move out of maven to a script in this case, for reasons I can elaborate > if anyone cares. I'll bite -- what's this bit about? Drew
