RE: Why no multiple locations of sources? ( was Re: inter-projectdependencies for the Eclipse plugin )

[Michal Maczka <mm...@interia.pl>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:jason@zenplex.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 5:10 PM
> To: Maven Users List
> Subject: Re: Why no multiple locations of sources? ( was Re:
> inter-projectdependencies for the Eclipse plugin )
>
>
> On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 09:05, Rafal Krzewski wrote:
> > Jason van Zyl wrote:
> >
> > > That is distinctly different than multiple source directories for your
> > > application. And here we are trying satisfy these
> requirements and scale
> > > by letting the plugins deal with these different requirements
> instead of
> > > trying to jam everything into the POM.
> >
> > I believe that the POM is the proper place for defining what goes in
> > your project. Plugins should retrieve information from there and proceed
> > with their work.
>
> I've pondered this many a time. I really do not like the idea of having
> to augment your POM when you choose to use a plugin. I very much like
> the way the antlr plugin works in that it just kicks in when certain
> resources are present.
>


Jason!

I had this idae even before this discussion started.
Forget about the context in which I have presented it.

I did not mean anything else just to make POM simpler and more consisted.
I know that this idea has a side effects (e.g. places for extension)

but it is then up to you what type of sources will be allowed in POM.
Smart XML schema which allow only

<type>java</type>, <type>test</type>, <type>iutest</type>
<type>aspect</type>

et voila we are 100% compatible with current limitations
which are in POM for forcing best practices.

But POM is simpler.





> > Right now many plugins rely on project.properties file
> > rather than POM, which I think is not right.
> > Of course we should always use our best judgment to avoid cluttering
> > the POM, but I thing that the source directories (java, aspect, unit
> > test, and others that arise) are crucial for defining the project, and
> > therefore they should be in the POM.
> >
> > I really like Michal's proposal with sources/source/type elements.
> > It puts the emphasis on the plugins undestating a specific type of
> > sources, and allows us remove funcitonality from Maven core -
> > it only manages information on abstract source sets.
>
> Sorry but I'm not sure I follow. Adding this abstraction adds to maven's
> core. Offloading all processing and definition to the plugin is the way
> I want to move.
>

But look what is in POM.

What kind of information is more importand for project:

company logo, project contributors or information about project sources?

company logo, project contributors as I know are used only by one
plugin (site) and can be as well just controlled at plugin level.
As anything else which is not hierarchical set of properties as
e.g. dependencies.

But I strongly believe the sources should be 1st class citizen in the POM.




> > I think this kind of change that it's really worth pursuing.
>
> I'm not really in favour of this and much prefer the way the antlr
> plugin works. I would like to see most of the <build/> element removed
> and replaced with a place where you can define plugin settings if they
> are required. We started this a long time ago and there was a proposal
> that just never got implemented.

Look:
<source>
   <type>test</type>
   <path>src/test/java</path>
   <includes>
        <include>**/*Test.java</include>
   </includes>
   <excludes>
        <exclude>**/RepositoryTest.java</exclude>
        <exclude>**/JAXPTest.java</exclude>
   </excludes>
</source>

It is hard to make include/exclude in project.properties.
So I doubt if it will be easy switch to kick out <build> section from POM.



BTH: I had _REALLY_ no intention to have a support for multiple source
directories
for the same type of sources or to provide a cure for the problem which
disused before
in this thread and which is solvable in the way like it is ANTLR plugin.
This is different subject. Maybe even related to my proposition.
But this is definitely not an issue about which I wanted to discuss.


regards

Michal



>
> > R.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
> --
> jvz.
>
> Jason van Zyl
> jason@zenplex.com
> 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: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Nie chcesz wyrzucac pieniedzy w bloto?
> Zapoznaj sie z ofertą nootebookow Actina,
> sponsora serwisu Nowe Technologie http://nt.interia.pl/. Zapraszamy!
>
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------
KLIKNIJ 2 razy TAK >>> http://link.interia.pl/f170d



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org