I think that I have determined that the problem is a bug somewhere in
either maven or eclipse because when I use my Linux machine with
Eclipse 3.2 it imports fine. However, you do ask a good question
about how the application is going to be run by an end user.
I was originally thinking the application would be an ear file that
would be deployed on an app server. Any other thoughts on it?
Angie
At 11:59 AM 9/23/2008, Martin Cooper wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Angela Cymbalak
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've run into a problem between Eclipse and Maven, I suspect. I have
> followed Luciano's directions a few times in order to get the project
> downloaded.
>
> Maven fetches everything appropriately and the build appears to be
> successful. I have what look to be correct .project and .classpath files.
> My problem is on the import. When I do a straight import of the project
> (File > Import > Existing Projects Into Workspace) the project is imported
> but not as a Java project as it should be. Because it isn't imported as a
> Java project I lose the ability to run the application as needed.
>
> After several days of googling and reading I haven't been able to find a
> way to force Eclipse to recognize that this *is* a java
project. I am using
> Eclipse 3.3 on Vista (ick) for my development. Can anyone point me in the
> correct direction?
You got further than I did. ;-) I'm not an Eclipse user, and wasn't planning
on becoming one any time soon. I followed the instructions to the point of
generating the Eclipse files, thinking that I could then take the classpath
from that and run the app without Eclipse. However, my jaw dropped when I
discovered that the classpath has over 100 jar files in it, and at that
point I gave up. (Yes, I know that's wimpy, but I didn't have a lot of time,
at that point, to spend on setting up a 100+ entry classpath to try running
it some other way.)
How would an app like this normally get run, e.g. post-development? I'm not
used to massive classpaths (outside an app server, at least).
--
Martin Cooper
>
> Thanks,
> Angie
>
>
>
