I'd prefer #2. There's no reason to have a site module; you might as well just add src/site directly to the top-level "plugins" project; then let Maven do all the work of linking to all the individual plugins.
Maven naturally supports #2 (and automatic composition); why not take advantage of that? -- Adam On 8/14/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > b) Structure: > > There are two options for handling the doc structure: > > 1. create a site module, which contains *all* documentation > > 2. having each (sub)project/plugin having it's own src/site and *compose* it. > > > > Shale uses the first (for instance). See [1] for David Geary's remote > > example. MyFaces uses the second. > > > > What do you like more ? > > +1 for the 1. The real reason, why I voted for #1 here is, that's faster than two. I started to add some content to the plugin's site module. It's also possible to have the second option. > > -Matt > > > > [1] http://shale.apache.org/features-remoting.html > > -- > > Matthias Wessendorf > > > > further stuff: > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com > > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > further stuff: > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
