hmmm... I don't think src/main/resources/images is the defacto standard...
according to the docs, it should copy:
src/main/resources/net/java/dev/myimage.gif -> jar!/net/java/dev/myimage.gif
by default
by making a schemas subdirectory (or not putting it directly under
resources), you require that each user make a custom resources section and
not use the default that comes with maven
to use the default resources settings for maven, it seems like it should
have the org-net-com/company/package directly under resources
Are you reading the maven docs differently?
On 3/5/06, Jonathan Johnson <jonjohnson_at_mail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes - I understand and agree with your statements. Schemas are used BOTH
> at runtime and compile time. Therefore would you agree the default should
> be
>
> src/main/resources/schemas
>
> Plural schemas since images is also commonly plural under
> src/main/resources/images
>
> any yes this is mearly a defaulting standard that can be overridden with
> "schemaDirectory".
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Malachi de Ælfweald [mailto:malachid_at_gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 05, 2006 12:52 AM
> *To:* users_at_jaxb.dev.java.net
> *Subject:* Re: JAXB compilation plugin
>
> On 3/4/06, Jonathan Johnson <jonjohnson_at_mail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I used to put all of my XSD files under src/conf and distributed them
> > > into the root of the jar. As such, PatternFilenameFilter and
> > > GlobFilenameFilter would both work well.
> > >
> > > I noticed that the XJC jar had the binding.xsd under
> > > /com/sun/tools/xjc/reader/xmlschema/bindinfo/binding.xsd inside the jar.
> > > This is actually really good because it prevent classloader problems of
> > > finding the wrong one by some other company. I started to modify the
> > > resources section of my pom.xml, and realized there was a much easier
> > > way.
> > >
> > > I have now moved all of my XSD files directly into the source
> > > directory. In the IDE, they show up as a resource in that
> > > package/namespace, and the resources part of the pom.xml automatically
> > > can copy them into the correct directory without any sophisticated filename
> > > mapping.
> > > [jon] I agree that schemas should be placed in a package structure
> > > that matches the source, but the schemas and bindings and any other resource
> > > file should not live in the java tree. Instead the schemas and code should
> > > live in the parallel packages at distinct source roots. For example
> > >
> > > \src\main\java\com\sun\foo\someclass.java
> > > \src\main\schemas\com\foo\somecorresponding.xsd
> > > When assembling a jar, yes the class files live in the same location
> > > as the xsd, but the java and xsd sources should be kept separate as a best
> > > practice.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I can see that. Maven's docs say that there should be a "resources"
> > directory. Do you think we should use that, or do you think that the
> > XSDs/XJBs need their own "schemas" directory. I ask, because, what if they
> > are using DTD? That isn't technically schema, but should go in the same
> > place.
> >
> > [jon] Resources are really meant for those items that are loaded by the
> > classloader at runtime. Items in the resources tree are bundled into the
> > distribution jar just as the *.classes are. Typical files are string
> > bundles, and images directory, static property files, sound files, data
> > files, etc. Schemas are used at compile time and not typically loaded at
> > runtime from the classpath. *.xsd, *.dtd and *.xsb are compile time
> > articfacts and should be kept separate from the runtime artifacts.
> >
>
> Interesting analogy, because they are loaded at runtime... In general they
> are loaded for validation... In my case specifically, I copy the jar'd
> resource into the local data directory....
>
> As a side note, any open format should be including the schemas since they
> define the format for interoperability... I don't see schemas as solely
> compile-time artifacts. In fact, prior to JAXB, they were everything but.
> As such, I do not see how they differ from any other resource, since you
> still load it as something like this.getClass
> ().getResourceAsStream("/org/eoti/spec/mypackage/mypackage-1.0.xsd");
>
> In fact, there would be a benefit to using the standard maven resource
> directory... from their docs:
>
> > and one for resources (the structure under which is copied to the target
> > classpath given the default resource definition).
> >
> thus, by using it, we don't need to require the user to specify additional
> resources configuration
>
> > The choice of the term "schemas" for the directory name was
> > intentional. Schema is a generic term and has been used longer than the
> > invention of *.xsd files. Both *.xsd and *.dtd are based on the original
> > concepts founded in database 'schemas'. The *.xsb files are also artifacts
> > that define a schema. A DTD is a data schema. A *.xsd file is a data
> > schema and a captial S, Schema. The schema directory name here is meant in
> > a more general sense. The Jaxme folks opted to call their directory
> > \src\main\jaxme, but I thought that was too specific since you may have
> > other schemas that are not used for jaxme but want them in the same,
> > consistent place.
> >
> > So, I see the src/main/schema directory makes sense.
> >
>
> I can agree with that.
>
> And realistically, we are talking about the DEFAULT -- since they can
> always override it.
>
> Mal
>
>