+1 I have had to integrate maven into projcet where for varous reasons, it was easier to have maven build into a different directory
I think flexibility is the key, and also not being to rigind about such things. I can see the need to justify the requirements, but as I say I have used maven in 2 situations where is was *easier* at the time ot change the name of the "target" folder. Not that it couldn't have been done another way that didn't require that, but at the time it was (or would have been) easier i.e. if I start work on an existing project with many members and the project is not currently mavenized & I can't simply change it wholesale. I want to gradually introduce maven but not disrupt the way people are currently doing thaings In fact by that argument, this feature will arguably enhance the adoption of maven by making it easier to introduce maven into existing projects. That was cerainly my case. Matthew > -----Original Message----- > From: W. Sean Hennessy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 8:32 AM > To: 'Maven Users List' > Subject: RE: How set maven.build.dest in project.xml ? > > > > The advantage being Maven would be able to service the > requirement for one group's choice of "target" and another > group's use of "build" for the name of the result tree without > the need to instrument a directory rename or dir copy > goal. > > Do I really care that much if all classes are output to "target/"? > Personally it does not matter which to me. > Would like to be able to accommodate a different name be it > "build", "target", "diskimage", "bin", "cible" or "Ziel". > > My interest is in the flexibility to accomodate such changes. > Given the bandwith and any level of confidence in my jelly > skillset I would volunteer to contribute. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 11:47 AM > To: Maven Users List > Subject: RE: How set maven.build.dest in project.xml ? > > > On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 12:06, W. Sean Hennessy wrote: > > Jason, > > > > Please, I beseech you to reconsider the "make target/ your only > > choice" limitation. We acknowledge that a standard directory structure > > facilitates maintenance. However, please, consider that the specific > > folder naming could be defined as configurable items. We still > > benefit from the existing directory the structure and the jelly > > scripts behavior is preserved. > > > > "target/" becomes "${target-dir-nm}/" in build.xml and jelly. > > > > with > > # ------------------ > > # build.properties > > # ------------------ > > bin-dir-nm=bin > > target-dir-nm=target > > conf-dir-nm=conf > > dist-dir-nm=dist > > lib-dir-nm=lib > > sql-dir-nm=sql > > src-dir-nm=src > > tst-dir-nm=test > > web-dir-nm=web > > xdoc-dir-nm=xdoc > > > > Thanks for your consideration. > > > > Ok, in your opinion what would be the advantage of making these > things above configurable? Do you really care that much > if all classes are output to target/ ? > > -- > jvz. > > Jason van Zyl > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://tambora.zenplex.org > > In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational > and technical order to justify his work and to be > justified in it. > > -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
