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 generate.
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 br...@apache.org http://brettporter.wordpress.com/