Jason van Zyl wrote:

On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 09:05, Rafal Krzewski wrote:


Jason van Zyl wrote:

That is distinctly different than multiple source directories for your
application. And here we are trying satisfy these requirements and scale
by letting the plugins deal with these different requirements instead of
trying to jam everything into the POM.


I believe that the POM is the proper place for defining what goes in
your project. Plugins should retrieve information from there and proceed
with their work.


I've pondered this many a time. I really do not like the idea of having
to augment your POM when you choose to use a plugin. I very much like
the way the antlr plugin works in that it just kicks in when certain
resources are present.


Right now many plugins rely on project.properties file
rather than POM, wich I think is not right.
Of course we should always use our best judgement to avoid cluttering
the POM, but I thing that the source directories (java, aspect, unit
test, and others that arise) are crucial for defining the project, and
therefore they should be in the POM.

I really like Michal's proposal with sources/source/type elements.
It puts the emphasis on the plugins undestating a specific type of
sources, and allows us remove funcitonality from Maven core -
it only manages information on abstract source sets.


Sorry but I'm not sure I follow. Adding this abstraction adds to maven's
core. Offloading all processing and definition to the plugin is the way
I want to move.

I think this kind of change that it's really worth pursuing.


I'm not really in favour of this and much prefer the way the antlr
plugin works. I would like to see most of the <build/> element removed
and replaced with a place where you can define plugin settings if they
are required. We started this a long time ago and there was a proposal
that just never got implemented.


I completely agree with you about having plugins actually be the ones doing their stuff with the sources. However, maven has to provide basic facilities to plugins for dealing with source directories, and for expressing these in the POM (in a section specific to that plugin is fine). What feels inherently wrong about the present setup is that the POM specifically knows about 4 different source directory types, and stops there. It should really only know about 'source directories', and stop there. What is done with the directories is a function of metadata (not expressed as xml elements, as presently done) attached to those entries, or the fact thay they are in a plugin specific section, and various plugins which act on that. Something similar to Michal's proposal is actually a lot cleaner than the present setup.

Regards, Colin



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



Reply via email to