common sounds right. "Leaf" projects can be jar/war/pom/ear/etc.
Aggregating/parent projects must be pom. You can hack a pom to have a
binary with the assembly plugin but it's a questionable design IMO.
mike
mraible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 08/09/2006 11:23:51 AM:
>
> I started working on the Maven 2 conversion last night. I'm currently
using
> Carlos's nested recommendation.
>
> Here's a screenshot of the current structure:
>
> http://raibledesigns.com/repository/images/appfuse2-structure.png
>
> Using this structure, I get errors stating that the "data" and "web"
parent
> projects should have a packaging type of "pom". However, I want these
> projects to create their own JAR artifacts. Should these be moved into
> "common" projects instead of having them in the root of data and web?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Converting-
> AppFuse-to-a-Maven-2-Project-tf1964609.html#a5729055
> Sent from the Maven - Users forum at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
