> Why not just include the version# of the library in your library
definition?
> Right now, I have different versions of several libraries as library
> definitions ("JGL 3.1.0" vs "JGL 4.0", for example), and different
projects
> depend on different libraries.
>
> Is this a viable solution/workaround, or am I missing the point?Still the fact that the jdk and library tables are in the install directory does not really promote sharing. In my company, people have to manually synchronize their library/jdk definitions. Right now we have both files in our VCS. After the morning code refresh we run an ant target that copies the up-to-date tables to the intellij directory. Changes to these files are rather painful since they are changed in a place that isn't under VCS control and you can easily overwrite your changes or somebody else's if you are not careful. I agree with Stefan. There are some scalability issues with using IDEA on large team. A hierarchical scheme like JBuilder seems reasonable to handle all options. I want to share: 1) how a product is built: libraries, jdk,.. 2) how it is developed and viewed: code.style, file.types,error highlighting,... 3) if you are Pair-Programming, live templates, key-mappings,... I think it is very reasonable to say that all options should be able to be defined at a global level, project level and developer level (from low to high precedence). Global level and project level could be configured not to be under the idea install directory. Jacques "schmoe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message aghdhs$q0i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:aghdhs$q0i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > mike > > "Stefan Freyr Stefansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > aghctf$p15$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:aghctf$p15$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Hello. > > > > Before I begin, I'd like to say kudos to the IDEA team for a (mostly) > great > > product. > > > > I'm working for a rather large company that has a relatively large > software > > department. > > > > Until now we've been using JBuilder as our primary software development > tool > > and been pretty satisfied with it (except that it is way too expensive and > > we're not really using many of the features that actually make it so > > expensive such as EJB development). > > > > A few of us here have been evaluating IntelliJ IDEA and we are very > pleased > > with it except for mainly one thing (I'll elaborate on that a little > later). > > We started out evaluating v2.5 but soon switched to Ariadna, mostly > because > > 2.5 used absolute paths for many things that made group development > > virtually impossible. We're running development machines on at least two > > platforms (windows and linux) and we desperately needed the projects to > use > > relative paths for all definitions. > > > > After we switched to Ariadna, things have gone much better. However, I > > recently discovered a very serious bug that is giving us a hard time to > make > > the transition from JBuilder to IDEA companywide. The thing is that all > > library definitions seem to be done on an "dev machine level". That is, > if > > I create a library definition it seems to be stored in an XML document > > called "library.table.xml" that is located under the > > <IDEA_HOME>/config/options directory. This means that I can not have two > > versions of the project on my computer at the same time referencing > > different versions of this library. This poses a serious usability issue > > here for us where we are for example developing projects that have been > > branched in CVS in order to maintain a "stable" branch for a release > > version. The branched project does not use the same jar file version as > the > > project on the MAIN branch and therefore we have a big problem. This > method > > of storing library definitions doesn't really make much sense in this > case. > > > > Now I know that you must hate hearing that JBuilder does something better > > than you but the fact is that in this case it does :o(. Overall, you guys > > have a much better product except for this single, yet serious flaw. I > > think that the way this is solved in JBuilder (being able to define a > > library definition on three levels: Dev machine level, Project level and > > User level) is a very good solution. Please tell me that this is on the > > agenda... hopefully for the 3.0 release? > > > > Kind regards, and just to prevent all misunderstanding... I'm not starting > > any flame war... I'm just expressing my concern because I would like > nothing > > more than to drop JBuilder and pick up IDEA but the fact is that we can't > > possibly do that now because of this one thing :o( > > > > Stefan Freyr Stefansson > > Software Developer, deCODE Genetics. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Eap-features mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.jetbrains.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-features
