A wise old hermit known only as Andreas Schildbach
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> once said:
> By default xdoclet puts the generated interfaces in another package
> than the source EJB.
> This behaviour can be modified for example by @ejb:interface
> package="..." and @ejb:home package="...".
It only does this if the package is called <something>.bean or
<something>.ejb
> I would suggest that xdoclet behaves the other way round: By default
> put all
> files in the same package, and on users request alter the package name.
Name the packages something other than the above, and it does.
> The rationale on this suggestion: it is almost always more intuitive to
> tell
> a system what to do (alter the package name) than what not to do. To
> tell
> the system what not to do you need to do what it will do without your
> intervention, which often leads into trial-and-error play.
>
> What do you think?
This came up a while back, the conclusion was that current XDoclet
behaviour was encouraging good practices so shouldn't be removed.
Andrew.
_______________________________________________
Xdoclet-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel
