Hi Bret, IMHO, your proposal is the way maven should go. This is a generic way to express any new kind of project topology. I think Micha's proposal is just another extension that describe what should be done, which is NOT good. I think maven's first essence was to describe a project and not what should be done to build/document/... it! So specifying what integration unit tests should be run is not the good way. But specifying what is available for testing is a better way. > <sets> > <set> > <name>required-name</name> > <extends> > <extend>set-name</extend> > <extend>other-set-name</extend> > </extends> > <src> > <directory>...</directory> > <includes> > <include>...</include> > </includes> > <excludes> > <exclude>...</exclude> > </excludes>
[...] > * Not that comfortable with the extends syntax - bit too similar to POM > inheritance. Could be used to fold subprojects. However, need a way to > include deps and classpath built sources of other sets without > duplication. Any thoughts on this? Maybe you additionnaly need something like restriction, the other form of specialization. But then we must find how we would process this ? But this is not wasted time as I do think too that POM needs a redesign. A+. Didier. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
