> 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
> > 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.