What's so bad about having one extra pom for your project structure? 2009/8/25 Edelson, Justin <[email protected]>
> no. > not sure about that: In a project with <packaging>pom</packaging> you could define a <build/> tag and do some stuff. So it is possible to do something like this: POMA <packaging>pom</packaging> <module>B</module> <dependency>B</dependency> <build>...</build> But you lose the benefits of all the default stuff that's performed during a packaging:jar build, so I guess having one extra pom for the project structure isn't too bad and a lot less to write... -Sven > > ________________________________ > > From: solo1970 [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tue 8/25/2009 11:15 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Can aggregator be other type than pom? > > > > > Hello, > > I have the followng scenario: Currently I have 1 POM that generates a jar > file. I want to separate some code (B) in a separate jar file and add it > as a dependency, but want to minimize the number of POM files I need to > write... > > Can I do this? > POMA > <packaging>jar</packaging> > <module>B</module> > <dependency>B</dependency> > > > POMB > <packaging>jar<packaging> > > Any ideas? > > Sonia > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Can-aggregator-be-other-type-than-pom--tp25136362p25136362.html > Sent from the Maven - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > >
