docs: clarify replacement for deprecated scriptSourceDirectory

[anukalp2804]

Summary

Clarifies replacement guidance for the deprecated scriptSourceDirectory model field.

Details

• Updated the model descriptor (.mdo) to explicitly document the recommended replacement
• Regenerated sources accordingly
• Documentation-only change; no behavioral or API changes

Relates to #11504

Following this checklist to help us incorporate your
contribution quickly and easily:

• Your pull request should address just one issue, without pulling in other changes.
• Write a pull request description that is detailed enough to understand what the pull request does, how, and why.
• Each commit in the pull request should have a meaningful subject line and body.
  Note that commits might be squashed by a maintainer on merge.
• Write unit tests that match behavioral changes, where the tests fail if the changes to the runtime are not applied.
  This may not always be possible but is a best-practice.
• Run mvn verify to make sure basic checks pass.
  A more thorough check will be performed on your pull request automatically.
• You have run the Core IT successfully.

If your pull request is about ~20 lines of code you don't need to sign an
Individual Contributor License Agreement if you are unsure
please ask on the developers list.

To make clear that you license your contribution under
the Apache License Version 2.0, January 2004
you have to acknowledge this by using the following check-box.

• I hereby declare this contribution to be licenced under the Apache License Version 2.0, January 2004
• In any other case, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.

[anukalp2804]

@Bukama , @slachiewicz
This PR updates the model descriptor (.mdo) to clarify the recommended replacement for the deprecated scriptSourceDirectory field and regenerates sources accordingly.

The change is documentation-only and does not introduce any behavioral or API changes.
Local verification completed with mvn verify -DskipTests.

[elharo]

Is it Source or source?

[anukalp2804]

Yes, it should be lowercase <source>, matching the Maven POM XML element name.
The current wording intentionally uses <source> for that reason.
Please let me know if you’d like this phrasing adjusted further.

[desruisseaux]

Note: {@code <source>} should be {@code <source>}. HTML character entities are automatically escaped when inside {@code} or {@literal}.

EDIT: Oups! Sorry, ignore that comment. I just saw that this is inside a .mdo file, not a .java file.

[elharo]

How does mdo work here? Does it first copy this into a .java file?

[anukalp2804]

Yes — the .mdo file is the source of truth.
During the build, Maven’s model generator processes the .mdo and generates the corresponding Java model classes and JavaDoc from it.

That’s why the XML escaping (e.g. <source>) is needed in the .mdo, even though the generated JavaDoc ends up with the correct <source> rendering.

[anukalp2804]

Thanks for the clarification!