Hi Dennis,
One of the reason I don't prefer your approach (which I had adopted
before) is that when all of the the artifact is released into the
repository, it's structure does not match up with the actual SVN directory
structure. It's harder to derived where that artifact comes from without
l
Thanks Jason,
Yes I understand what you are saying now and I agree it doesn't make sense
to create a generic EAR/RAR or even WAR, but I think it is reasonable to
be able to consume/includes those existing resources from within other
artifacts (esp. when the artifact isn't in your control to cre
Appology to previous email! Notes was playing up on me while editing it
half way!
Yes, you are right. I really meant that it doesn't have to be unique
across groupId but within each groupId it has to be unique.
The approach I have now taken with groupId and artifactId is as follows,
thisproj
Yes, you are right. I really meant that it doesn't have to be unique
across groupId but within each groupId it has to be unique.
project
+- common
+ common
+- webapp
+- supplier
+ common
+- webapp
Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROT
Hi Jason,
Sounds like a good solution but seems like a perculiarity rather than
something that is intuitive.
I think it is perfectly valid and consistent with Maven's notion of
coordinate system to support war and any other artifacts that can be
fetched from repository.
I accept your work a
Hello again,
Maven remote resource plugin is a very handy utility but it doesn't
support any other artifact type than jar.
My scenario is that I have a Maven project for a set of XML schemas which
are packaged and distributed as war. I also have another dependent Maven
project which I'd like t
Hi Arik,
Yes, I have been using the prefix for alittle while but found that it is a
silly way to get around the problem given that maven coordinate system is
groupId:artifactId:version (http://maven.apache.org/pom.html)
artifactId does not need to be unique and it is contextual to groupId. It
Hi there,
I've notice that when using maven-idea-plugin, the module name that is
generated is based solely on artifact id.
Is there a particular reason for this? Why wouldn't it use project name
instead?
The reason I'm asking this is that we have three maven projects with
following structure,
