23 comments

would be very nice, considering it's become part of a standard J2EE stack

some recycled stuff from fabrique, eh? do you have a timeframe for 6.0 already?


On 2005-10-18 21:58:39 +0200, Dmitry Kashin <no_mail@jetbrains.com> said:

http://www.jetbrains.net/jira/browse/IDEADEV-2687



0

I couldn't care less. Now let the flame wars begin ;)

0

I couldn't agree more. That would the single most important feature in 6.0

0

JSF is of no importance for me - I don't even use JSP.

AspectJ is the single feature that I really miss in IDEA ... it's a
feature that would greatly improve performance and stability of my software.

0

Guys,

We are going to publish our preliminary plans and some specifications
for (some of) enterprise features really soon. We would be glad to hear
any feedback from you then.

0

Hello Marcus,

MB> I couldn't care less. Now let the flame wars begin ;)

Ditto... There has to be something more important :)

R


0

Hello Duncan,

DD> I couldn't agree more. That would the single most important feature
DD> in 6.0

SINGLE most important? wow, because you can't write JSF in IDEA now? :)

R


0

Michael Riess wrote:

JSF is of no importance for me - I don't even use JSP.


Ditto.

AspectJ is the single feature that I really miss in IDEA ... it's a
feature that would greatly improve performance and stability of my
software.


And I wouldn't let AspectJ near my code if you paid me. If you've ever
looked at the post-processed code that it produces... It makes me cry.

So. While not trying to start a flamewar, I would just like to point out
that everybody has their own priorities and JetBrains need to decide
what features would be used by the greater portion of their userbase
and/or attract more users.

Ciao,
Gordon

--
Gordon Tyler (Software Developer)
Quest Software <http://www.quest.com/>
260 King Street East, Toronto, Ontario M5A 4L5, Canada
Voice: (416) 933-5046 | Fax: (416) 933-5001

0

Ditto... There has to be something more important :)


I don't have any troubles with JSF -- there are weird people doing weird things all around the world, and I'm not one to judge their reasons. There are people who juggle geese, you know. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled.

Anyways, to be fair, what I don't want to see is prioritizing: spending valuable resources and time on JSF support and let other (far more widespread) frameworks to rot. I do want to see features benefical to most frameworks out there (like property completion on XML files), and I do want an OpenAPI to every new feature.

0

It is a nightmare to use JSF without proper tool support.
So this is a nice catch:
Those who use JSF currently do not use Idea.
Those who use Idea do not use JSF.

I guess that's why feedback has been mostly negative.

I am no web guy either, but recently had to start a web project. JSF does not look that bad to me. I had to switch to JDeveloper to use it easily though, and I am making good progress now.

So while JSF might not be that important for the current user base, it is a showstopper for many other potential Idea users.

0

So while JSF might not be that important for the current user base, it
is a showstopper for many other potential Idea users.


Right on the spot...

-


Maxim Shafirov
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"


0

Please please please, I cannot say this enough times, but do NOT spend time writing hardcoded implementations to technologies that thousands of users will refuse to touch. By all means waste your time with JSF support, but make sure that you make a good investment in the underlying API's required to make JSF work, to the point where the whole thing can be a plugin. There are a ton of web frameworks out there, and there's no reason for a single one of them not to have a plugin that makes working with it a breeze.

IDEA has repeatedly made the same mistake time and time again, it'd be nice if this once, the bulk of the effort for stupid feature X goes into the openAPI, so users are then free to develop whatever other stupid ideas they want without hogging up valuable jetbrains resources.

0

it'd be nice if this once, the bulk of the effort for stupid feature X

goes into the openAPI

At least JavaScript stuff followed this pattern in version 5.0 no matter
how uneffective it appeared to the end-user feature. Be sure, we do learn
from own mistakes.

-


Maxim Shafirov
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"


0

Yep! You're right. The language API is very cool, and the exact right way to go about adding this sort of functionality!

0

Not into this at all either, even though I fully support JSF I do not support GUI editors full stop.

0

Is the Javascript language plugin source code available?
If not, I would recommend you make available the source code for many of these additional languages. It would be much easier for other developers to add support for other languages if they can work from an example.

0

Hello Alex,

A> Is the Javascript language plugin source code available?
A>
A> If not, I would recommend you make available the source code for many
A> of these additional languages. It would be much easier for other
A> developers to add support for other languages if they can work from
A> an example.

The source code for the JavaScript plugin is included in the Plugin Development
Package which can be downloaded from the IDEA download page.

--
Dmitry Jemerov
Software Developer
JetBrains, Inc.
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"


0

Alex wrote:

Is the Javascript language plugin source code available? If not, I would
recommend you make available the source code for many of these additional
languages. It would be much easier for other developers to add support for
other languages if they can work from an example.


Yes, it is available, I belive under Apache license, and it does help a great
deal when implementing a custom language plugin.

0

Well maybe "single most important" was a little strong.

Yes I can and do write JSF in IntelliJ now. But features like GUI editing/viewing of config files I find very useful. More so for viewing than editing. I can print out the gui representation and take that to a meeting. Many of the people who are involved in the design process don't have an "in-depth" understanding of JSF. A GUI representation of navigation or backing beans is very helpful in conveying the application design.

Maybe the solution is a plugin. The problem is that there aren't any good ones for JSF. There really aren't any for that matter except for James's console.

Furthermore the stuff that JetBrains producs works. Plain and simple. So if they are up to it, I say add those features.

I don't use there swing designer, but that doesn't mean that I am against it. If they want to stay competitive then the MUST add these features.

My two cents for what its worth.

DKD

0

It is a nightmare to use JSF without proper tool
support.


This is what worries me about JSF. I haven't found I needed much in the way of tool support for Tapestry (although of course it would be nice). Is the need for tool support the sign of a bad technology? Not having any JSF experience I can not yet judge if it is a good or bad technology but the need for tool support to be productive does concern me.

0

Please make it a plug-in so those of us who don't need it, or only need it occasionally, don't suffer the overhead. the same goes for all custom framework support...

0

Sure, as long as it comes with the plugin already installed.

Dave Lorde wrote:

Please make it a plug-in so those of us who don't need it, or only need it occasionally, don't suffer the overhead. the same goes for all custom framework support...

0

Please sign in to leave a comment.