> -----Original Message----- > From: Gilles Dodinet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 21 September 2003 16:55 > To: Maven Developers List > Subject: Re: [aspectj] Changing behavior of aspectj plugin, is it ok? > > Vincent, > > Although it actually works fine when putting standard classes containing > inner aspects inside aspectSourceDirectory, i find it a little > confusing. Indeed in that case the primary cu isnot an aspect by itself > but rather an almost pojo, and putting it in aspectSourceDirectory just > because it has an inner aspect seems strange to me, in particular when > theres f.i. only a few classes that should be moved to aspects directory > (that is we lose some consistency here) ; I would rather see > aspectSourceDirectory like a container for all top-level aspects only.
There might another solution: to make aspectSourceDirectory point to the src tree. Anyway, I agree that's an interesting point to tackle. However, that would be for the next version. I'm going to deliver a new first release (which I need for the Cactus build). We can always improve on it after. > > As for testing aspects, i agree this can be the role of another > plugin/goal ; but my point was that i dont clearly understand why there > would be a unitTestSourceDirectory element in the pom but no > aspectUnitTestSourceDirectory since there is already an > aspectSourceDirectory nearby the sourceDirectory element. Completely agree. I personally don't think we should have a <build> element in the POM. Or better, we should have something extensible with config elements for all plugins in the POM. I made a proposal a while ago and we discussed it with Jason and others, but we haven't implemented it yet... Regards, -Vincent [snip] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
