> From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 08:16 pm, Michal Maczka wrote: > > >The only purpose of "type" in maven is to indicate how it is > processed by > > > the runtime. (ie plugins get installed, jars get added to > classpath etc). > > > It does not even specify that extension as there is a M-to-M > between type > > > and extension. ie. > > > > I don't agree that this is the only purpose of "type". > > > > I think it's reasonable to have "type" directory as this can separate > > artifact produced by various tools. ... I would like to have an > exclusivity > > for adding artifacts to directories like (jars/sources/distribution). > > But I could accept if somebody (some tool) > > is keeping its files in sibling directories. Also some "exotic" > > artifacts are making the repository harder to navigate. > > Sounds reasonable. But maybe the term "type" is not the best term > for this as > it does not designate a "type" but a arbitary subdivision of > space based on > usage patterns. Not sure what a better term would be? >
I thought of using "category" but opted for "type" simply because it is shorter. -Tim
