Looks like we haven't came to a conclusion here. After all I'm after option #1 because it's the only one that solves the problem out of the bat, without making the user going through investigation why his tests don't work. It unsolves an IDE integration issue (classes from resources breaking compilation) but that issue much easier to understand and resolve when it happens. So #1 is my vote :)
Cheers! On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Peter Niederwieser <[email protected]>wrote: > I have nothing against a JPA plugin, but it would be unfortunate if I > absolutely had to apply this plugin in order to make JPA work in tests. > Nobody will have this knowledge when they first hit this problem. I also > have a feeling that we might run into similar problems with other (JEE) > standards. Therefore I'd prefer a more general solution. > > If the classes/resources split was only to allow adding generated resources > to IDEs, can we make it so that Gradle uses one output directory by > default, > but can be configured to put some stuff (like generated sources) into other > output directory(s)? Maybe we could support a separate output directory per > source directory set? This way we would conform to 'standard practice' by > default, with the ability to customize as needed. > > Cheers, > Peter > > -- > View this message in context: > http://gradle.1045684.n5.nabble.com/fixing-JPA-handling-tp5480821p5484614.html > Sent from the gradle-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > > -- Szczepan Faber Principal engineer@gradleware Lead@mockito
