---bill lam wrote: > The J community is a very small community and not all J users > actually use project manager. Those who use project manager > might already use it for years and do not want cosmetic > change that requiring modification of projects files. > > Just my 2 cents.
I agree that requiring users to go back and modify existing project definitions would not be desirable. However I'm pretty sure that it would also not be necessary if the enhancement was done right. In a previous message I enumerated a number of options for managing the Library lists: > Options for managing the different lists include: > * additional nouns similar to PUBLIC_j_ but with different names, > * a 3rd column could be added to PUBLIC_j_ that denoted the library type > * anything starting ~system/ is from the System Library, anything starting ~addons/ > is from the Addon Library and everything else is from MyLibrary. I don't think the 3rd option would require any modification of project files (or user startup scripts), just some changes in how PUBLIC_j_ and PRIMARYLIBS are interpreted/displayed by the Project Manager. In my opinion enabling the differentiation of which library types to require vs. include is more than a purely cosmetic change. Among other things distribution of applications will be clearer and more flexible. The idea of automatically managing PUBLIC_j_ entries for addons is probably a separate idea that is actually an enhancement for Package Manager. It's just that I think it would be better to have Addons in a separate Library list so they aren't confused with System libraries endorsed by Jsoftware. I have added my thoughts to the wiki with Frankenstein mockups of the forms. http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/System/Library/Requests ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
