Maybe if we understood the "why" of multiple trees, we would be better able to describe the "why not" and the "how to work without them"

So to Colin (I think)

Why do you have multiple source trees?
What is in them?
Do they build distinct artifacts?
Would other disparate projects have a requirement to also split code up the way you have (which explains unit test / aspect etc)


The fact that your project may be legacy and you just want to shoe-horn it into Maven quickly is a legitimate requirement, however there are a bazillion ways to skin that cat and maybe you're approaching it from the wrong angle?


Jeffrey D. Brekke wrote:


On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 13:20:56 -0500, Colin Sampaleanu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:





Jason van Zyl wrote:


{SNIP]



Far from arbitrary. People can use the addPath tag to work around
it and to migrate projects but I certainly don't recommend it
ever. At least in the POM more than one source directory will never
be supported.



I don't understand how you can say Maven doesn't support multiple
source directories, what about sourceDirectory,
unitTestSourceDirectory, integrationUnitTestSourceDirectory,
aspectSourceDirectory? These are all different source directories
that are handled by various parts of Maven. To draw the line there
seems awfully presumptious. With all due respect to your opinion
(that this handles most cases and results in good practices, which I
agree), I've been around the block enough to know that I don't know
everything. If somebody/an organization has a need to add another
source dir that is on an equal basis to the ones above (to be used
by a plugin, or whatever), and feel that in their usage this results
in a cleaner/better setup, power to them. Unfortunately there is no
way to do it. Is Maven development driven by the needs of the users,
or the need to enforce your (and in this case mine) idea of best
practices at the exclusion of others. If it were a matter of
compromising the best way to do it, or introducing large amounts of
additional complexity to the setup/build process, I would understand
it, but that is not the case here. This attittude should apply in
general, not just to this feature.



Features of Maven are influenced and sometimes defined by users. I held fast to the idea that unit tests should not be skipped when building an artifact, but code was eventually introduced to 'turn off' that dependency. This multiple source tree thing is sort of reminding me of that and I'm +1 to Jason's stand on not introducing changes to the POM for multiple source trees.

I like Maven to be about best practices and each and every time I've (
or others I've worked with ) ever worked with a project that has
multiple source trees for production code it is a pain and each time
it is easier to treat the trees as seperate projects.

Maven provides a way to build projects, using one source tree for
project code.  I don't think Maven should become a tool to build
anything, anyway.  Maven provides a way for projects to migrate if
they choose Maven: make them into two projects as they want to be.






--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to