I think we are pretty fine on this. While I think we may have become de
facto more aligned with IJ simply because it supports Maven better than
Eclipse and is thus easier to use, I don't see this as a policy
decision. I did misconstrue some of your earlier remarks on that topic
but that is all clear now. If I had Ted's 10+ years of IJ keystroke
mappings and not my own Eclipse mappings I probably would never have
raised this as an issue.
If a little tune-up of our Eclipse configs is in order I'd like to learn
more about them so I can dig into it. I have almost full time to work on
this right now.
On 12/5/11 1:26 PM, Sean Owen wrote:
Agree, within any reason. I may misunderstand entirely, but sounds like
plain old Maven config works with Maven and works with IntelliJ but not
Eclipse, and we're maintaining some extra configuration to work with
Eclipse. Sounds like there's already extra effort to support Eclipse.
That's at odds with the concept that we're somehow becoming IntelliJ
centric. There's no IJ-specific config in the project that I know of.
What piece am I missing or are we just fine now?
To be clear I will only ever care about IJ myself but I do not want any
IJ-specific anything in the project. And I don't mind Eclipse-specific
stuff if it must be. But that doesn't add up to shafting Eclipse users
right?
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Jeff Eastman<[email protected]>wrote:
Sure, but if the Maven features we use, or the way in which we use them,
disenfranchise the users of an important IDE then I think we are doing our
customers a disservice. This is just like many web-based products which
work only on IE; they restrict themselves to that browser user base. It
takes some extra work to support all the versions of all the popular
browsers but many organizations feel it is worth the effort.
I think we should make a conscious decision in this case not to
disenfranchise the Eclipse community.
