Consider moving jOOQ configuration stuff into a jooq element

[lukaseder]

The plugin configuration looks like this:

<configuration>
        <!-- Plugin configuration -->
    <database>
    </database>

        <!-- delegation to flyway configuration -->
    <flyway>
    </flyway>

        <!-- delegation to liquibase configuration -->
    <liquibase>
    </liquibase>

        <!-- jooq configuration ? -->
    <generator>
        <database>
            <includes>.*</includes>
            <excludes>flyway_schema_history</excludes>
            <inputSchema>public</inputSchema>
        </database>
        <target>
            <packageName>org.jooq.codegen.maven.example</packageName>
            <directory>target/generated-sources/jooq</directory>
        </target>
    </generator>
</configuration>

I think it would be more clear to put jOOQ stuff inside a jOOQ element. I'm aware that this would produce an apparently unnecessary additional level of nesting, but:

• Even in jOOQ, <generator/> isn't a top level element. While <jdbc/> isn't necessary in most cases, it may be in some (e.g. to pass additional properties to the JDBC connection)
• There are elements like <skip/>, <logging/>, <onError/>, <onUnused/>, <configurationFile/>, and others that might be added in the future, which you won't support out of the box unless you nest jOOQ's configuration in a <jooq/> element. Note, you could add support for these in your own top level, but then that would be confusing as it wouldn't be clear if e.g. <skip/> belongs to jOOQ, or to you.
• Who knows if you're going to add more additional elements in the future, e.g. to clean up / post-process generated code, etc. Those elements will also possibly conflict with jOOQ stuff.

[sivaprasadreddy]

Hi @lukaseder Thanks for the suggestions. As you suggested, moving jOOQ related config inside <jooq>...</jooq> would be less confusing for people.

@romchellis would you like to work on these changes? If we can incorporate these changes by next week we can release 0.0.2 along with these changes.

[romchellis]

Hi @sivaprasadreddy , @lukaseder . I like suggested approach. Actually I'am already looking on possible solutions.Not sure that it will be completed by monday, possibly by the end of next week.