> It is the fact that Gump project names doesn't necessarily correspond to the > names Maven have given them. So, Magic is capable of declaring the > discrepancy.
That's what I thought (though didn't get the classpath bit or the difference between id and alias - I'm not very gump literate at this point). Like I said, I think the role belongs the other way around which I think is what you are getting at next. > Mind you, Magic has the ambition of no hand editing of generated gump > descriptor, in fact we are now looking at how to tell Gump to generate the > descriptors from the Magic model prior to Gump starting. Likewise - running "maven gump" would be ideal if it always generated exactly what was needed. I don't know how much extra gump stuff is really needed in there. > Q; Are you suggesting that we just run some Maven goals on the Excalibur > codebase, and edit the output? "maven gump" from each project will generate a standard descriptor. I haven't done much with this output, but happy to take on any requests :) > My concern is that too many of the Excalibur projects are named differently > internally in the POM than they are in Gump, and that a series of downstream > changes are required. This could be true - so probably a long term goal to unify all the types of build types. I think we probably need to get a bit more experience building these different projects as they are before venturing into unchartered territory. This is all just my opinion from a distance of course as a Maven user/developer. As I said, I'm not familiar enough with gump internals to comment on a lot of things. Cheers, Brett --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
