On Sep 7, 2006, at 6:03 AM, ant elder wrote:
I completely agree with Frank.
Also whether or not it is possible to get free copies of IDEA is
beside the
point, a lot of people use Eclipse so we need to embrace that if we
want to
encourage them to contribute to Tuscany.
And a lot of people use IDEA, Emacs, VI, etc. For example, most of
the developers I know use IDEA and Emacs, not Eclipse (even though
the Eclipse juggernaut has significantly more market share) . The
point is twofold. We need to accommodate as many as possible, not
just Eclipse users. The second is checking in unverifiable artifacts
is bound to lead to a break at some point.
...ant
On 9/7/06, Frank Budinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would say that thinking about Eclipse as just one of a many IDEs
that
people may be using is totally off the mark. In reality, there are
only a
very few popular Java IDEs (two, actually), and Eclipse is the
free one.
So, in my opinion, not accommodating Eclipse seems ludicrous - it
will
inconvenience a lot of people. I would think that the more productive
route would be to say that we officially support Eclipse and that
we file
Eclipse bug reports and/or create (temporary) workarounds to make
sure
that it works. Saying that people have an alternative (simply
shelling out
$500 for IDEA) doesn't sound very convincing to me either.
I'm sorry but I believe thinking about Eclipse as just one of the
many IDEs is completely valid. We need to be as open as possible,
particularly since there is no good reason in my mind why we should
"anoint" a particular IDE for Tuscany developers (and that goes for
IDEA too). For me, the question is not about accommodating Eclipse
but having a build process that works with the tool we chose, Maven,
and making it easy for developers using a variety of tooling
environments. Otherwise, we should use Eclipse to do the build and
mandate that it is run prior to checkin ;-)
The need to accommodate a variety of development environments is a
balancing act. In the specific case that prompted Jeremy's rant, a
problem in Eclipse resulted in the introduction of a change to the
build process that makes working with Maven, particularly for
distributions, extremely difficult. I think we should err on the side
of Maven. Another example would be a hypothetical bug in, say, the
IDEA compiler. If it only occurs in one place, maybe we could put a
work-around in the code as long as it did not impact performance or
cause drastic changes for others. If it required something like a
performance hit or not using an important language feature, IDEA
users would need to accommodate. If we find that Maven consistently
causes problems for a wide variety of developers, then we should
change to something better.
Jim
Frank.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
