Actually Guillaume mentionned that the information can not be lost thanks locations map in the parser/model so the presence or not is the best option and would stick to the tag based model.
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://x.com/rmannibucau> | .NET Blog <https://dotnetbirdie.github.io/> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.github.io/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/java-ee-8-high-performance-9781788473064> Javaccino founder (Java/.NET service - contact via linkedin) Le mar. 16 sept. 2025 à 15:28, Thomas Reinhardt <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > On 15/09/2025 19:44, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > Le lun. 15 sept. 2025 à 17:15, Thomas Reinhardt <[email protected]> a > > écrit : > > > >> > >> I think <subprojects /> definitly should disable discovery. A list of > >> submodules *was* specified (with 0 actual submodules). > >> > > > > I agree that would be the most intuitive, however, this information is > lost > > in the object model, so we definitely don't have access to it. > > So the solution is to make the discovery on/off switch a part of the > object model: > <subprojects auto-discovery="true" /> > > The parser treats an absent <subprojects> tag the same as > <subprojects auto-discovery="true" /> and > <subprojects /> the same as <subprojects auto-discovery="false />. > > Not sure what is required on the parser side (as I haven't looked at the > code) but seems not too complicated IMHO. > > Also, from an engineering POV it seems like a good idea to have a more > explicit model. Should make the implementation more readable. > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen, > Thomas Reinhardt > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
