John McNally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would like
>
> om/Foo.java
> om/peer/FooPeer.java
> om/base/BaseFoo.java
> om/base/peer/BaseFooPeer.java
>
> to compile to
>
> om/Foo.class
> om/FooPeer.class
> om/BaseFoo.class
> om/BaseFooPeer.class
>
> I'm not sure how easy it is to do something like this. We can do it
> easy enough with Ant, since we are copying the src tree into a build
> directory before compiling. But my guess is that it could mess with
> some other build systems. I am hoping that it is doable, but I can live
> without it.
-1 on that idea. It's non-intuitive, and I see it resulting in a lot
of indecipherable headache for users.
Having the peer and om classes next to each other in the source tree
is clean and simple, with the overhead of so much confusing indirection.
--
Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
