I'm quite alright with that too. We don't really have a strong convention, 
because IIRC nothing is coded in the plugins - it's more what the archetypes 

Given that VS creates the layout you describe, and the add-in generates a POM 
from that, the generation could be simpler if it assumed that format.

How would that impact other people?

- Brett

On 15/11/2011, at 2:38 AM, Lars Corneliussen wrote:

> Then we have to drop src/main/csharp, too. 
> Tests could be in a subfolder 'Test' or 'Tests', resources are kept together 
> with normal sources. 
> That would be most common while adding the possibility to have tests together 
> with the code, but omit it in the compiled assembly. Most .NET-Developers 
> will fi d that to be good news and it is optional anyway. 
> _
> Lars
> _
> Mobil versendet. 
> Am 15.11.2011 um 09:57 schrieb Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>:
>> Sounds good to me. The conventional directory layout should be what most 
>> .NET developers expect it to be (but still configurable).
>> - Brett
>> On 14/11/2011, at 11:25 PM, Lars Corneliussen wrote:
>>> Hi guys,
>>> in java it is common to have package folders inside 'src/main/java', as for 
>>> example 'npanday/plugins/compile' - in .NET on the other hand we just 
>>> configure a root namespace in the project file and then start with folders 
>>> from there.
>>> I'd like to do that in NPanday, too. That means remove the path-segments 
>>> that repeat the default namespace per project.
>>> Any objections?
>>> _
>>> Lars
>> --
>> Brett Porter
>> br...@apache.org
>> http://brettporter.wordpress.com/

Brett Porter

Reply via email to