>> 1) Why are all WO frameworks in a single classpath container? This
>> seems like it makes everything needlessly complicated -- we have to
>> write custom classpath ordering vs just using classpath itself and
>> Eclipse built-in features. In reality, I believe each individual
>> framework should be a container, so I would have
>> ERExtensions.framework as an entry in my classpath. Then I can
>> just reorder the frameworks with the classpath ordering tool, and
>> this much more closely models how WO runtime will treat these.
>
> I like that. It will be more work to setup a project (vs just
> checking off items in the current WebObejcts Library) but more
> flexible.
Actually, the existing method could remain, it just needs to be
slightly smarter ... It could view/modify this proposed variant as well.
>> 2) Do we even need ant.*? Couldn't there be an ant task ("or
>> something") that loads classpath out of the Eclipse .classpath
>> file? Somehow Eclipse itself does this, right?
>
> We might want to keep the ant.* stuff for those not using Eclipse
> (IntelliJ etc.). The need to have the classpath twice has always
> slightly annoyed me.
Personally, I don't care about non-Eclipse people. I want my tools to
not suck. If they want to write nice IntelliJ versions of things,
they can. I'm not necessarily saying we actively go and break things
for non-Eclipse people, but if there's a design that works better in
Eclipse but causes problems outside, I am of the "so be it" opinion.
Now obviously ant builds needs to continue to work, so that pretty
much solves the problem for IntelliJ people, because whatever we
choose to do has to be able to function outside of Eclipse, but if the
file format becomse .classpath instead of ant.*, they can figure out
how to write the xml file.
ms
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Nov 08 2007 - 14:38:01 EST