When we state that supporting IDEs is a non goal, we mean that we will
not make an effort to improve the support over what is already there.
It's an important goal that we don't regress functionality or workflows.
If the langtools team is happy keeping a separate IDE configuration
parallel to the main build implementation, then we will not force you
into doing it differently. We believe that some other teams might
appreciate generation of IDE configurations from the build scripts and
if that is desired, it will likely be a follow-on project.
/Erik
On 2012-02-22 00:24, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
I guess I'm sceptical that you can generate projects configurations
for popular IDEs at autoconfig time without keeping something like a
template for the desired configuration, in which case you've simply
added an extra level of inconvenient indirection.
It has not been a problem to maintain the langtools project config
over the past few years.
-- Jon
On 02/21/2012 02:40 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
The JEP explicitly states that these would be follow-on projects,
presumably to narrow the scope of this project so that it can get
deployed more quickly.
Once the build system has a model of the project, it will be possible
generate projects configurations for popular IDEs at autoconfig time,
eliminating the need to keep IDE projects in sync with the project
layout.
On 2/21/2012 5:35 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On 02/21/2012 02:10 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote:
Posted: http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/138
- Mark
Many developers use IDEs. It would seem to be a regressive step for
"Support IDE projects" to be a Non Goal.
-- Jon
