Hi, We have a setup that works well during development but doesn't agree with Continuum's philosophy of how to handle things - or so it seems to me. I think there is a point in doing it another way than we are, but I am not sure how. Hopefully, somebody here can enlighten me. :)
We have three projects: 1. 'common', which basically contains an XML schema definition file for code generation with XJC (other things as well, but that's probably not relevant for the issue at hand). 2. 'client', which is built using Ant (for historical reasons, would have preferred Maven but no time to fix that yet). One step of the build looks like so: <target name="generate-xsd-source"> <mkdir dir="${xjc.gen.dir}" /> <exec executable="${xjc.exe}"> <arg value="-p" /> <arg value="se.jadestone.hc.client.database"/> <arg value="-d" /> <arg value="${xjc.gen.dir}"/> <arg value="${common.dir}/src/main/schemas/database.xsd"/> </exec> </target> In our local environments, '${common.dir}' points to a directory where the source code of the 'common' project resides (../common by default). 3. 'server', which is built using Maven, and which contains the following dependency: ... <build> ... <plugins> <plugin> <groupId>com.sun.tools.xjc.maven2</groupId> <artifactId>maven-jaxb-plugin</artifactId> <executions> <execution> <goals> <goal>generate</goal> </goals> </execution> </executions> <configuration> <generatePackage>se.jadestone.hc.client.database</generatePackage> <schemaDirectory>../common/src/main/schemas</schemaDirectory> <strict>true</strict> <verbose>true</verbose> </configuration> </plugin> </plugin> </build> Since we cannot know (I think) which directory name Continuum will choose when checking out and building the 'common' project, both of these builds fail. As far as I have been able to figure out, both the XJC tool and the maven-jaxb-plugin require that we specify an explicit path to the file to generate code from, so it doesn't seem to be an option to use the jar file that we actually build from other things in the 'common' project. I would like to get away from using explicit paths the way we are, but I am not sure how. Does anybody have a solution to this problem? We're using 1.0.3, by the way. Thanks in advance, Petter