6:12 a.m.
Any reason we don't have one of these in
https://svn.jboss.org/repos/seam/modules/trunk/?
It would make building all the modules easier...
6:25 a.m.
Ok, I found it in parent - any reason for this odd layout?
On 29 May 2009, at 12:12, Pete Muir wrote:
Any reason we don't have one of these in
https://svn.jboss.org/repos/seam/modules/trunk/?
It would make building all the modules easier...
_______________________________________________
seam-dev mailing list
seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
10:48 a.m.
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Ok, I found it in parent - any reason for this odd layout?
As I was saying before, this technique was an established crutch to help
Eclipse deal with Maven in the pre-m2eclipse days. Eclipse cannot have
nested projects. Therefore, when you use eclipse:eclipse, the parent gets
excluded from your Eclipse workspace and you can't edit the pom.xml file
there or use the Team support for SVN update. So, developers established
this workaround by positioning the parent adjacent to modules so everything
makes it into Eclipse.
http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-eclipse-plugin/reactor.html
But now that m2eclipse allows for nested projects, we don't need this
workaround.
-Dan
--
Dan Allen
Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Dan
NOTE: While I make a strong effort to keep up with my email on a daily
basis, personal or other work matters can sometimes keep me away
from my email. If you contact me, but don't hear back for more than a week,
it is very likely that I am excessively backlogged or the message was
caught in the spam filters. Please don't hesitate to resend a message if
you feel that it did not reach my attention.
8:55 a.m.
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)bleepbleep.org.uk> wrote:
Any reason we don't have one of these in
https://svn.jboss.org/repos/seam/modules/trunk/? It would make building
all the modules easier...
Oh, it's because that file was relocated to the parent folder so that all
modules were adjacent to accommodate Eclipse. Otherwise, you couldn't use
SVN update in Eclipse. However, now that I realize that m2eclipse is
perfectly capable of handling nested modules, there is hardly any reason not
to use it (at least we should worry about accommodating the scenario). So I
could move the contents of parent back to the root where it really belongs.
So the short answer is, it is in the parent folder. Should I just move it?
-Dan
--
Dan Allen
Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Dan
NOTE: While I make a strong effort to keep up with my email on a daily
basis, personal or other work matters can sometimes keep me away
from my email. If you contact me, but don't hear back for more than a week,
it is very likely that I am excessively backlogged or the message was
caught in the spam filters. Please don't hesitate to resend a message if
you feel that it did not reach my attention.
8:57 a.m.
On 29 May 2009, at 14:55, Dan Allen wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Pete Muir
<pmuir(a)bleepbleep.org.uk>
wrote:
Any reason we don't have one of these in
https://svn.jboss.org/repos/seam/modules/trunk/?
It would make building all the modules easier...
Oh, it's because that file was relocated to the parent folder so
that all modules were adjacent to accommodate Eclipse. Otherwise,
you couldn't use SVN update in Eclipse. However, now that I realize
that m2eclipse is perfectly capable of handling nested modules,
there is hardly any reason not to use it (at least we should worry
about accommodating the scenario). So I could move the contents of
parent back to the root where it really belongs.
So the short answer is, it is in the parent folder. Should I just
move it?
Yes, there are no complex dependency cycles here that I can see :-)
-Dan
--
Dan Allen
Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Dan
NOTE: While I make a strong effort to keep up with my email on a daily
basis, personal or other work matters can sometimes keep me away
from my email. If you contact me, but don't hear back for more than
a week,
it is very likely that I am excessively backlogged or the message was
caught in the spam filters. Please don't hesitate to resend a
message if
you feel that it did not reach my attention.
8:59 a.m.
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)bleepbleep.org.uk> wrote:
On 29 May 2009, at 14:55, Dan Allen wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)bleepbleep.org.uk>wrote:
> Any reason we don't have one of these in
> https://svn.jboss.org/repos/seam/modules/trunk/? It would make building
> all the modules easier...
Oh, it's because that file was relocated to the parent folder so that all
modules were adjacent to accommodate Eclipse. Otherwise, you couldn't use
SVN update in Eclipse. However, now that I realize that m2eclipse is
perfectly capable of handling nested modules, there is hardly any reason not
to use it (at least we should worry about accommodating the scenario). So I
could move the contents of parent back to the root where it really belongs.
So the short answer is, it is in the parent folder. Should I just move it?
Yes, there are no complex dependency cycles here that I can see :-)
Okay, I'll do that.
-Dan
--
Dan Allen
Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Dan
NOTE: While I make a strong effort to keep up with my email on a daily
basis, personal or other work matters can sometimes keep me away
from my email. If you contact me, but don't hear back for more than a week,
it is very likely that I am excessively backlogged or the message was
caught in the spam filters. Please don't hesitate to resend a message if
you feel that it did not reach my attention.
6161
days inactive
6161
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Dan Allen -
Pete Muir -
Pete Muir