Hi there,

Michaela started by asking:

> In IntelliJ and Eclipse a "Project" is a different thing.
> A project in Eclipse is like a module in IntelliJ.

Yes, "like" is the correct verb. But not "equal" and that's causing some 

> Now there is the class IntelliJProjectImpl, and I was wondering,
> whether it shouldn't be named IntelliJModuleImpl instead to prevent confusion.

It's called "ProjectImpl" because it "implements" the core interface "IProject".
So renaming the class would solve part of the confusion, just to create another 

> The question I have is, whether the class is really only used to model a 
> module.

The technical answer is: It is used (or *should* be used) whenever you make use
of Core functionality that requires an IProject parameter (or returns an 
IProject value).
For everything else it's a good idea to stick with Intellij concepts and data 

Stefan answered:

> IWorkspaceRoot represents an IntelliJ project. [...]
> Maybe add some documentation to the class [IntellijProjectImpl],
> that it represents a module internally.

I'd rather solve this on a more fundamental level, see below.

Etienne added:

> IMHO this class should represent a project.
> Only sharing a module is not a Real choice as far as i know,
> and it's a pain when trying to work with Saros/I.

Eventually, Saros should be able to share what the user wants to share.
So, yes: Limiting Saros/I to single modules is not the target state,
but it's a reasonable step along the way.

Story time:
- Initially, Saros supported only single (and complete) Eclipse projects.
  SharedProject was the old name of Session (until about six years ago [1]).
- We realized, that limiting Saros to a single Eclipse project was not the
  way to go. After all, Saros *itself* is made up out of multiple Eclipse
  projects. Sharing multiple projects was implemented in early 2011;
  partial sharing (= arbitrary subsets of project resources) was added in
  late 2011.
- At this point, Saros should have been reworked so that projects are only
  a convenient way of selecting resource collections, but nothing more.
  In particular, projects should have no longer been an integral element
  of Saros's business logic.
- But, alas, years went by, and  The Project  remained the unit of all
  Saros sessions. Up until the day we started the Saros/I implementation
  and created Eclipse look-a-like interfaces in the core two and half years
  ago [2] -- simply because we did not know what the Intellij requirements
  would be, so this was the easiest way to go.

So what now?
- We could rename the core interfaces to something generic, using terms
  that are neither from the Eclipse, nor from the Intellij realm. Something
  like: TheThingContainingEverything instead of IWorkspaceRoot and
  UnitsOfCode instead of IProject.
  This way, confusion would be less likely, because you're not tempted to
  think in IDE terms.
- But what would be the point? From a user's perspective, all we really
  care about are files and folders, and everything that we need to synchronize
  those copies is some reference point to calculate the relative paths to.
- Furthermore, even if we could find generic names, there would be no actual
  concepts behind them. A few examples:
  - An Eclipse Workspace is a loosely coupled collection of projects;
    an IntelliJ Project consists of closely coupled Modules.
  - Eclipse users are not likely to have more than one Eclipse instance
    opened at the same time; IntelliJ users happen to do so (at least I've
    seen it a few times).
  - An Eclipse Project only contains files and folders; an IntelliJ Module
    itself may contain more Modules.

So my proposal is as follows:
- On a technical level, the Core filesystem package should not know about
  anything but Resources, which are either Files or Folders, which in turn
  contain more resources. That's the intersection of the two concept worlds.
- From a user perspective, Saros should be able to share any collection of
  resources -- the participants need to agree on a reference point, and
  Saros does the rest.
  - In an E/E setting there would nothing wrong to let the users still select
    projects on the sender's side and warn the recipient if s/he is about
    to select a non-project as the root. 
  - The same goes for S/S sessions. Just because the Core logic only talks
    about files and folders, the IDE plugins that make use of the Core do
    not need to refrain from any form of usability.
  - In cross-IDE sessions, the users need to figure out a way of how to
    structure their code and what to use as the reference point for their
    session. But if they use a version control system, they need to figure
    out the first part anyway (just as we did with both Eclipse and Intellij
    metadata in our most important projects).
- In fact, getting rid of Workspace and Projects in the core is the only way 
  I see to enable cross-IDE session in the long run.

I know that this a biggie, but I think it's necessary to think big once in a 
There are other things on a similar scale that I've carrying around for some 
I started a Roadmap page to organize these thoughts -- it's not yet linked from
anywhere on saros-project.org, but if you're interested, you can find it here 
The points discussed above fall under the bullet point "Cross-IDE 
(You might notice the item "Remove SVN support" -- if we really try to remove
 Workspace and Project from the Core, it might be helpful to remove all VCS 
 first to get a cleaner starting point.)

Any sort of feedback is welcome.


[3] http://www.saros-project.org/roadmap 
DPP-Devel mailing list

Reply via email to