and I guess it doesn't hold up too well.
Don't get me wrong, I follow the recommended structure on my own open-source project, and I am reaping the benefits of it by using almost all of the report plugins.
It's just that I'm probably not going to be able to convince my team at work to change the project structure, and therefore will probably not be able to use some (many?) of the maven plugins.
However, if I had my vote, I'd still leave the "backdoor" way of doing this available, but people are on their own if they try it (until they ask a question on the mailing list and start this thread all over). Hmm, you could even print out an ugly, descriptive warning message if the dir trees point to the same place - would that be an acceptable compromise?
Thanks to everyone for their time and input, and thanks for the great tool.
-- Chad
Jeffrey D. Brekke wrote:
[Jason's clear and correct description clipped]
But I am curious: name one single advantage to putting test and application sources together. Basically the arguments for it have been "I want to do it so I should be able to" which is not likely to be taken seriously around here.
The only one I have ever heard was something along the lines that it is easier to see the test code filenames next to the production code filenames in a listing in your editor/ide.
IDE's provide a way to quickly find or list test code, and in emacs I just change src/java to src/test/java ( and vice-versa ) in the path when opening another file.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
