It's ok to rethink the semantics of "synchronize output directory" term. But since the compiler considers only project sources, wouldn't it be logical that "synchronize..." option considers also only the files that are in the project? Could you please describe your typical configuration? Perhaps the problems that you encounder should be solved by other features (e.g multi-project support and multiple output paths).
Best regards, Eugene Zhuravlev JetBrains, Inc / IntelliJ Software, http://www.intellij.com/ "Develop with pleasure!" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 16:38 Subject: RE: [Eap-list] 612 - dependency based make deletes important files > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Eugene Zhuravlev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >But then it won't be "synchronize output directory", because this is what > >the option exactly does: > >synchronizing _project_ sources with the classes in the output > >sirectory. > > I'm not following here. You say it wouldn't be "synchronize output > directory" because the option does a certain thing. Well that is what is > does now but that's exactly what I'm suggesting: change it. Make it > "synchronize _source_ sources with the classes in the output directory". My > point here is you speak as if the words "synchronize output directory" > dictate that it be the project directory that is synchronized, but I think > you'll agree that completely depends on what "output directory" means to > you. You say "synchronize output directory" and then make a leap to > "synchronizing _project_ sources". You can only make that leap because > you've already assumed that an output directory is associated with only a > single project. > > To me, it certainly does NOT imply project directory. As I said before, I > think it is a fallacy to think that an output directory is exclusive to a > given project. As a matter of fact, I expect that it is not uncommon to > find people have a number of Idea projects for one source tree. I suspect > that these projects end up following along the lines of the Java packages > in the source directory. All of these are, for obvious reasons, going to > have the same output directory. > > >You could try to include these sources in the project but > >exclude them from > >the compilation (File | Project Properties | Compile). > > This would be _far_ from ideal as I would have to exclude a large number of > directories in every project. Plus, as soon as someone adds another > directory parallel to the project root (by, for example, adding another > package) I would have to know to exclude that directory, in every project. > It is also a little counter to one of the reasons I use several packages > which is the memory use of Idea caused when I have one project for the > entire tree. > > Another reason having a single project is impractical for me is that > assuming that everything under a root directory should be built is invalid > for our tree and having to exclude all the directories that shouldn't be > built would be a good bit of work. Having the ability to exclude a pattern > would be nice. All our test trees, for example, start with "test" for just > this reason. I wished we used Ant to do our builds, then this wouldn't be a > big deal, but we use make and no one is going to change that just for me or > my IDE. > > -Tom > > _______________________________________________ > Eap-list mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.intellij.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-list _______________________________________________ Eap-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellij.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-list
