Ah, thanks for the information. I actually first heard of the JSR from the JLense 
team, which produced a Swing equiv to the Eclipse APIs in an effort to produce a more 
J2SDK-friendly approach to writing rich client applications. It seems they are on the 
JSR in an attempt to better understand how their framework can support the JSR in the 
future. For now, looking at Eclipse and JBuilder APIs will probably expose the most 
common needs for JDE, and if the JSR succeeds, you can add the support then. Thanks 
for the news link, it was quite informative!
 
James

-----Original Message-----
From: Nascif Abousalh-Neto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 11:47 AM
To: James Higginbotham; Nic Pottier; Paul Kinnucan
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: JDEE plugins (was JUCI)



Well, looks like I jumped the gun. There is not API to look at yet for this JSR 198. 

I suggest we just move ahead (who know long it will take to get to a point where 
actual APIs are defined, this looks like a very hot politic issue as well 
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-978445.html) and later consider a move to conform to 
whatever they define. In the mean time we will learn a lot :-)


> -----Original Message----- 
> From: James Higginbotham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 12:21 PM 
> To: Nic Pottier; Abousalh-Neto, Nascif [NCRTP:3X20:EXCH]; 
> Paul Kinnucan 
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Subject: RE: JDEE plugins (was JUCI) 
> 
> 
> <snip/> 
> 
> > Until 
> > recently I think Emacs has been unsurpassed as the editor to 
> > use for Java, but I think some of the IDE's are catching up, 
> > specifically IntelliJ which most people I work with use.  
> > There are a few features there which I think would be easy to 
> > implement as JDE plugins (especially using reflection) but as 
> > Nascif says, I have neither the time or desire to brush up my 
> > lisp skills to do so.  If it were possible to create some 
> > basic interfaces that pure Java plugins could write to I 
> > think that would go a long way towards keeping us able to 
> > taunt other users with our editor. :) 
> 
> I echo that remark.. I've been using JDE for several years 
> and I have always been able to defend it vs. things like 
> JBuilder, Visual Café, and to some extent, VAJ. But now, 
> Eclipse and IntelliJ are blowing JDE away.. Now, I love Emacs 
> and think its editor is far superior to all the rest. And 
> until now, I've always selected Emacs + JDE over anything 
> these IDEs offered - GUI Swing/servlet/ejb wizards, etc. Now, 
> it seems JDE has reached the end of its extensibility until 
> this plugin design is factored in. So, now that the plugin 
> arch is being acknowledged as a must for JDE to grow as fast 
> as the current IDEs, I have to ask: 
> 
> 1) What are the biggest hurdles to get JDE using this new 
> plugin arch - people, time, technology? 
> 2) Is going JDE, versus integrating the Emacs editor into 
> today's IDEs, the right way to solve this problem (i.e. which 
> is more work - redesigning JDE or bridging a native editor 
> into today's popular IDEs to gain their infrastructure and 
> Emacs's editing capabilities)? 
> 3) Should JDE be examining and/or joining JSR-198 to see if 
> we should be following this plugin API now, such that JDE 
> will be compliant in the future? Thus, the JDE plugin code 
> won't have to change again in a few months to allow JDE to 
> take advantage of upcoming JSR198-compliant plugins? 
> 
> Just throwing out some comments to get the ball rolling. It 
> seems everyone is up for this idea, so my hope is to get us 
> thinking in the proper frame of mind, as this plugin 
> architecture may require enough redesign to rethink the way 
> JDE works now. I'm obviously not a JDE team member, nor have 
> I done much LISP, so some or all of my assumptions could be 
> slightly-to-way off. All I know is that these current IDEs 
> are giving JDE a run mostly because its written in the same 
> language as the programmer uses, reducing the barrier to 
> entry for extending it. This plugin idea is like the right 
> thing to do (and not doing it would jeopardize JDE's 
> effectiveness IMO), but I want to make sure that JDE is still 
> focusing on the right approach, not just taking the approach 
> because that's the way its been done in the past. 
> 
> Best Regards, 
> James 
> 

Reply via email to