I tried using the generateClient configuration parameter but I'm not getting the results I expected. The build generated a huge JAR file (system2-ejb-1.0-client.jar) which contains pretty much every class that's already in the system2-ejb-1.0.jar, not only the interfaces.
Am I missing something here? Ideally I would like to have a simple JAR file with only the EJB home and remote interfaces. Thanks, GB ----- Original Message ---- From: John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Maven Users List <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2006 7:09:46 PM Subject: Re: [M2] Identifying projects and modules Actually, I believe you could simply turn system2 into a single project, and specify it's packaging as 'ejb'. The ejb plugin has an option for generating an ejb-client jar file, which you could then use in the dependency set of the system1 project. You might want to take a peek at http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-ejb-plugin/ejb-mojo.html for more information. I think you'd be looking for the 'generateClient' configuration parameter for that mojo. Other than that, and with what little information I have about the system, it seems like a sane design. HTH, -john On 6/6/06, Guillaume Bilodeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have inherited two projects which I will be managing using Maven 2.0. Both > are Java EE-based, the first one sometimes talking to the second one using > stateless session beans. Both also should be sharing a large code base but > currently are not, so there's a lot of duplication. > > I'm wondering how I should distribute these projects into M2 projects and > modules. Right now I'm leaning towards having 4 projects: system1, system2, > system2-api and core. The first two are self-explanatory, system2-api would > contain the EJB interfaces required by system1 and implemented by system2, > and core would eventually contain the result of refactoring the duplicated > code. The first two projects would depend on the last two, and system2-api > would depend on core. > > Is this a correct approach or is there a better approach that I'm not > seeing? > > Cheers, > GB > > PS: To the person who answered me last time: thanks! My problem was > solved, but I couldn't find back the original message to confirm that and > thank you. > > >
