Sun Java Studio Creator == the heat is on

link]]>

Here are the highlights of what it supports:

  • JavaServer Pages (JSP) 1.2 and 2.0

  • JavaServer Faces 1.0

  • JDBC 3.0

  • JDBC Rowsets 1.0

  • Java Web Services Developers Pack 1.3



--
Norris Shelton
Sun Certified Java Programmer


26 comments
Comment actions Permalink

Norris Shelton wrote:

<a
href="http://wwws.sun.com/software/products/jscreator/index.html">link</a>

Here are the highlights of what it supports:

  • JavaServer Pages (JSP) 1.2 and 2.0

  • JavaServer Faces 1.0

  • JDBC 3.0

  • JDBC Rowsets 1.0

  • Java Web Services Developers Pack 1.3


And hence the conflict of interest which I keep feeling... IDEA and
Fabrique. Where is the interest of JetBrains to implement any of this
technology in IDEA if they're doing their own thing with Fabrique?

I can see the benefit of having 2 separate products, it makes for a
lighter weight IDE, but wouldn't there be a huge benefit in integrating
the 2?

R

0
Comment actions Permalink

I don't think that support for web ui technologies in the two are mutually
exclusive. They are targeting two different user communities.

It appears that Fabrique will hide all of the web ui implementation from the
user and force the use of their runtime libraries/services. So, it is
geared towards web designers not web developers.

For web developers, who typically want to do the web ui by hand and/or not
rely on the Fabrique runtime, IDEA is the only way to go. To support this,
JetBrains will have to implement these new technologies into IDEA.

Tim


"Robert S. Sfeir" <robert@codepuccino.com> wrote in message
news:c5ooqd$4q6$2@is.intellij.net...

Norris Shelton wrote:

>

<a

>

href="http://wwws.sun.com/software/products/jscreator/index.html">link</a>

>

Here are the highlights of what it supports:

>

  • * JavaServer Pages (JSP) 1.2 and 2.0

  • JavaServer Faces 1.0

  • JDBC 3.0

  • JDBC Rowsets 1.0

  • Java Web Services Developers Pack 1.3

>

And hence the conflict of interest which I keep feeling... IDEA and
Fabrique. Where is the interest of JetBrains to implement any of this
technology in IDEA if they're doing their own thing with Fabrique?

>

I can see the benefit of having 2 separate products, it makes for a
lighter weight IDE, but wouldn't there be a huge benefit in integrating
the 2?

>

R



0
Comment actions Permalink


"Tim Haley" <ymaraner@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:c5opu4$gbv$1@is.intellij.net...

I don't think that support for web ui technologies in the two are mutually
exclusive. They are targeting two different user communities.

>

It appears that Fabrique will hide all of the web ui implementation from

the

user and force the use of their runtime libraries/services. So, it is
geared towards web designers not web developers.

>

For web developers, who typically want to do the web ui by hand and/or not
rely on the Fabrique runtime, IDEA is the only way to go. To support

this,

JetBrains will have to implement these new technologies into IDEA.

>

I definitely agree with you Tim.
I mean it sounds good having a GUI just by clicking here and there, but as
we all know this isn't possible in web development because we do not have a
standadized UI/surface but a lot of design-oriented aspect which are quite
different from one project to the other. So there will always be need to be
able to edit this code manually. ...or would you really use Fusion for
creation youe HTML stuff...?!? ;)

Due to that I vote for supporting these standards in IJ and really hope we
gonna have some of this stuff in EAP soon..

R.



0
Comment actions Permalink

"Robert S. Sfeir" <robert@codepuccino.com> wrote in message
news:c5ooqd$4q6$2@is.intellij.net...

Norris Shelton wrote:

>

<a

>

href="http://wwws.sun.com/software/products/jscreator/index.html">link</a>

>

Here are the highlights of what it supports:

>

  • * JavaServer Pages (JSP) 1.2 and 2.0

  • JavaServer Faces 1.0

  • JDBC 3.0

  • JDBC Rowsets 1.0

  • Java Web Services Developers Pack 1.3

>

And hence the conflict of interest which I keep feeling... IDEA and
Fabrique. Where is the interest of JetBrains to implement any of this
technology in IDEA if they're doing their own thing with Fabrique?

>

I can see the benefit of having 2 separate products, it makes for a
lighter weight IDE, but wouldn't there be a huge benefit in integrating
the 2?


Which is why the component model used in Eclipse is so attractive: one can
build the IDE he needs using components he needs. Component development was
a fancy buzzword 10 years ago, but now we see the results. IDEA has plugin
API, but it is not a cornerstone of this IDE contrary to Eclipse. I guess it
is too hard now to rewrite IDEA to become more generic component container.

Ideologically, I am against integration of all and everything in one bulky
solid and expensive product. If I had a choice I would prefer to build
my development tool from preassembled constuction blocks. For the smoth
transition to componentized IDE they could create a new contaner for
Fabrique and base new versions of IDEA on it.

Michael J.


0
Comment actions Permalink

I'd like to know what you are talking about. I'd also like to know how you can know anything about the innards of IDEA. I'd also like to know why you people don't read instead of throw dice to know what JetBrains are gonig to do. Surely you realize that JetBrains != IDEA?

JetBrains produces a couple of products right now, IDEA is one of them. Fabrique is another. And as far as eclipse goes, come on :) It's not even on the map. Components built into the architecture? Huh? Well what about NetBeans then? Don't kid yourself into putting marketing blurbs in the same jar as a proper archicture description document.

0
Comment actions Permalink

I can see the benefit FOR JETBRAINS: if they manage to convince developers and enterprises to pay twice. Since I had to switch on a project where the web layer needs a lot of effort, I personally am quite dissatisfied with IDEA.

Thinking that the web support in IDEA 4 may be so poor because jetbrains is developing a web-rad ide too just makes me furious, and makes me hope that netbeans 4 will finally be comparable to idea for what concerns refactorings (don't mean ALL the features: anyway in IDEA I use 3 or 4 of them 90% of the time, and they will be supported in Netbeans 4 and, uhm, the interface seems pretty similar as one can guess from the preview........).

I am sorry, because I, as every other that loves IDEA and has been struck by its incredible advancedness in the past, would like it to be the best in every field but... I really feel that jetbrains is losing the pace of the evolution, and the features planned for 4.1 are already lagging behind the competition, and in any case neglect a lot of fields that would be more important (such as web development support, "porca troia", web development support!!!).

0
Comment actions Permalink

I agree Davide, J2EE and Web Services are the primary things I work with and yet these are probably the weakest features within IDEA. I really wish this was improved as I love IDEA and am desperate to use it more than I currently do. I use my copy of IDEA for all my non-web work, but these days most of what I do is web-based and so I'm not using it nearly as much as I'd like to be... I'd prefer to use it for everything and I don't like the idea that it seems most of JetBrains J2EE effort is being directed towards Fabrique, unless Fabrique will become tightly integrated into IDEA.

Having said that though I think the proof will be when EAP for Fabrique starts because at the moment anything we can say about the product is speculation. JetBrains have done a great job of supporting it's IDEA users in the past and I'm confident that this will remain.

0
Comment actions Permalink

What other IDE has those web-features you're vapourwaring about? You have to remember that l33t RAD web-development things like Fabrique, coldfusion, the usage base for that is pretty different from those using IDEA. IDEA users is probably those implementing said tools rather than those using them. I do mainly web-applications myself and there are no important features that I can think of that I'd like to have in IDEA regarding coldfusionesque things.

0
Comment actions Permalink

What other IDE has those web-features you're
vapourwaring about?


What the hell do I care about other IDEs? It's for IDEA, I've paid for, and it's IDEA I'm interested in using, and it's IDEA I want to become a better tool for the work I'm doing.

You have to remember that l33t
RAD web-development things like Fabrique, coldfusion,
the usage base for that is pretty different from
those using IDEA.


I don't give a damn about RAD wd things. I am pissed off by the level of support IDEA gives to web development activities.

0
Comment actions Permalink

Rob Bradley wrote:

Having said that though I think the proof will be when EAP for Fabrique starts because at the moment anything we can say about the product is speculation.


The EAP has started. If you go to the Fabrique product page on
JetBrains.com ( http://www.jetbrains.com/fabrique/index.html ), you'll see a
link to the EAP site.

Enjoy!
Vil.
--
Vilya Harvey
vilya.harvey@digitalsteps.com / digital steps /
(W) +44 (0)1483 469 480
(M) +44 (0)7816 678 457 http://www.digitalsteps.com/

0
Comment actions Permalink

Let me repeat my question for you then Mr Immanuel:
What features are missing?
Also, missing features often means that they are present in other IDEs. I would like to know which they are.

0
Comment actions Permalink

Thanks Vil, I wasn't aware it had started which is wierd since I had signed up for notifications. I'll have to take a look now!! :)

0
Comment actions Permalink

What features are missing?


Read below.

Also, missing features often means that they are
present in other IDEs. I would like to know which
they are.


Ok: I am NOT talking about features present in other IDEs. The last IDE I used before IDEA was netbeans, and I don't remember important features which are missing in idea if compared to netbeans (except ctrl-k/ctrl-l for word completion: http://www.intellij.net/tracker/idea/viewSCR?publicId=7746 ).

One feature which you could consider "missing" in IDEA if compared to, for instance, WSAD, is struts support. I know struts is bad and so on, but these days I'm stuck with it, and I must say that my poor colleagues using WSAD are having a worse time than me for nearly everything except for what concerns struts: I didn't look deeply into struts support in wsad, but I've seen it provides validation of struts config files (i.e.: if you link to a non existing action it issues a warning), and a number of little features which help in dealing with struts config in general.

But I would say that IDEA lacks features in the web development area if compared to IDEA itself. When you switch to the web layer after working a lot in the backend (all-java) field, you keep pressing shortcuts or expecting idea to do things that don't happen. For instance: custom tags are documented with the "description" tag in the xml tld. A number of libraries (struts and jakarta ones among all others) use those descriptions not only for a generic description, but for documenting params too, and there is a tool similar to javadoc to generate html description. One would expect IDEA to provide javadoc popups on ctrl-q or ctrl-space with that information, but this doesn't happen. Anyway: I don't know if another ide does it, what I do know is that IDEA behaviour in this field is inconsistent with respect to idea itself.

Other small glitches: there is no support for html restructuring (ctrl-L), there is no auto-import for custom tags (alt-enter), there is no auto-closing for html tags on ctrl-space, there is no "extract include" (you could, for example, select a portion of a jsp and apply a "refactoring" which replaces it with an include, application server support is severely lacking (only tomcat 4.0, 5.0 and weblogic: come on), there is no html documentation built-in, there is no javascript syntax highlight in ]]> tags, not to mention javascript autocompletion or DOM support (both are present in WSAD indeed), there is no "move" for javascript methods (it could be very useful if one could move them for local page scripts to global imported .js files), no JSP 2.0 support, no JSP EL validation, etc., etc., etc., etc.

Is this a pretty clear feature list for you? Much of those features are filed to the issue tracker, but I personally am pretty sick of submitting issues that stay in the "submitted" field forever and not even get opened. Makes one think he's pretty much ignored, after all.

In general: working with IDEA's web support makes one keep thinking that it is like a different, inferior product with regards to the product used for normal java development.

What are your feelings?

0
Comment actions Permalink

I second that - these are exactly the features I'm missing. I took a look at Fabrique - but that's definitely not the breed of tools I'm going to use in the future..

0
Comment actions Permalink

I agree. Fabrique seems more of a MVC framework than an IDE where I can easily develop the web-layer of J2EE applications, the latter being the (in my opinion) missing functionality of IDEA.

And in addition to the beforementioned missing features, I'd really like to see some CSS integration/validation a la TopStyle.

0
Comment actions Permalink

Oh, yes, of course I completely forgot the css world which is important too.

0
Comment actions Permalink

I second that - these are exactly the features I'm
missing. I took a look at Fabrique - but that's
definitely not the breed of tools I'm going to use in
the future..



Yes, I've taken a quick look: it seems to be a RAD tool based on well defined architectural assumptions. It is somewhat relieving seeing that it does not fit at all in the same space that the idea web development support should cover: now I know that the features I miss are really "missing", and won't be provided by another tool (maybe integrated with IDEA): time to ask for them once again. ;)

0
Comment actions Permalink

now I know that the
features I miss are really "missing", and won't be
provided by another tool (maybe integrated with
IDEA): time to ask for them once again. ;)


I think this is the key conclusion

0
Comment actions Permalink

The struts console makes struts extremely easy to use. Unfortunately,
the plug in is not listed in the plugin manager. You have to get it
manually.

I would like to see those things, but I would much rather see full JSP
2.0 support than see IntelliJ get better HTML support of JavaScript.

It's called Intelli "J", not Intelli "everything". Sounds like you
would be much happier with something like homesite.

Norris Shelton
Sun Certified Java Programmer




Davide Baroncelli wrote:

>>What features are missing?
>>
>>
>
>Read below.
>

>
>>Also, missing features often means that they are
>>present in other IDEs. I would like to know which
>>they are.
>>
>>
>
>Ok: I am NOT talking about features present in other IDEs. The last IDE I used before IDEA was netbeans, and I don't remember important features which are missing in idea if compared to netbeans (except ctrl-k/ctrl-l for word completion: http://www.intellij.net/tracker/idea/viewSCR?publicId=7746 ).
>
>One feature which you could consider "missing" in IDEA if compared to, for instance, WSAD, is struts support. I know struts is bad and so on, but these days I'm stuck with it, and I must say that my poor colleagues using WSAD are having a worse time than me for nearly everything except for what concerns struts: I didn't look deeply into struts support in wsad, but I've seen it provides validation of struts config files (i.e.: if you link to a non existing action it issues a warning), and a number of little features which help in dealing with struts config in general.
>
>But I would say that IDEA lacks features in the web development area if compared to IDEA itself. When you switch to the web layer after working a lot in the backend (all-java) field, you keep pressing shortcuts or expecting idea to do things that don't happen. For instance: custom tags are documented with the "description" tag in the xml tld. A number of libraries (struts and jakarta ones among all others) use those descriptions not only for a generic description, but for documenting params too, and there is a tool similar to javadoc to generate html description. One would expect IDEA to provide javadoc popups on ctrl-q or ctrl-space with that information, but this doesn't happen. Anyway: I don't know if another ide does it, what I do know is that IDEA behaviour in this field is inconsistent with respect to idea itself.
>
>Other small glitches: there is no support for html restructuring (ctrl-L), there is no auto-import for custom tags (alt-enter), there is no auto-closing for html tags on ctrl-space, there is no "extract include" (you could, for example, select a portion of a jsp and apply a "refactoring" which replaces it with an include, application server support is severely lacking (only tomcat 4.0, 5.0 and weblogic: come on), there is no html documentation built-in, there is no javascript syntax highlight in tags, not to mention javascript autocompletion or DOM support (both are present in WSAD indeed), there is no "move" for javascript methods (it could be very useful if one could move them for local page scripts to global imported .js files), no JSP 2.0 support, no JSP EL validation, etc., etc., etc., etc. > >Is this a pretty clear feature list for you? Much of those features are filed to the issue tracker, but I personally am pretty sick of submitting issues that stay in the "submitted" field forever and not even get opened. Makes one think he's pretty much ignored, after all. > >In general: working with IDEA's web support makes one keep thinking that it is like a different, inferior product with regards to the product used for normal java development. > >]]>What are your feelings?

>

0
Comment actions Permalink

HomeSite is ok for HTML-only design, but it too lacks full Javascript support, CSS editing, etc.

Dreamweaver comes closer but then again, it never comes close to 'web-development'

0
Comment actions Permalink

The struts console makes struts extremely easy to use.


N.b.: I have no problems with struts being "difficult", so I don't need a GUI or wizard for helping me. I have the same kind of needs why this kind of tool does NOT exist for nearly everything else in IDEA: one needs autocompletion, popup documentation, safety checks that tell you if you are forwarding to a non-existing jsp, refactorings of some sort ("rename forward"? ;) ), intelligent completion options that only suggest action classes in action tags and so on. Struts console is not at all a "real" idea plugin, in that it does not share idea's base philosophy, which is what does it an effective tool: I rather go with direct XML, than with the struts console GUI.

>Unfortunately,
>the plug in is not listed in the plugin manager. You have >to get it
>manually.

I know it, and have tried it: this is the reason why I won't even try the new "spring console": those kind of tools are not useful at all (and it's for that that people "really" using those kinds of technologies for day to day basis tend to produce different kinds of plugins: such as Spindle or the - sigh - Eclipse spring plugin).

>I would like to see those things, but I would much rather >see full JSP
>2.0 support than see IntelliJ get better HTML support of >JavaScript.

I would like to see both JSP 2.0 support (especially jsp el completion and popup docs) AND the rest of the features: IDEA gives almost anything one could possibly imagine for java development, and almost nothing of one could possibly imagine for web development...

It's called Intelli "J", not Intelli "everything".


It's even called "IDEA", but they don't seem having many of them, with regards to web development.

Sounds like you would be much happier with something like
homesite.


Oh please. I would be happier with WSAD, instead, and that is the (w)sad thing: happily, my boss has just proposed to buy a wsad license, too, "just in case"...

0
Comment actions Permalink

Right on! You've hit the nail on the head. The silly struts/spring consoles add next to no value. They're targetted at people who are already sold on the xml'ness of it all. The only value of them see to be a mild 'cool!' factor, rather than any genuine usefulness. I'd be amazed if anyone did most of their work in these consoles instead of directly working with the xml files.

0
Comment actions Permalink

Heh, you get tempted, you think it's gonna be faster, then you struggle with the interface, and you wonder why the heck you're using them, and then you remove the plugin and go back to normal life. It takes just as long to copy/paste the XML and change the values as it does to configure things directly in the plugin.

That said, Hani, you didn't say whether you agree that IDEA should or shouldn't support JSP 2 etc...

R

0
Comment actions Permalink

Oh please. I would be happier with WSAD, instead, and that is the (w)sad

thing: happily, my boss has just proposed to buy a wsad license, too, "just
in case"...

This is a suprising statement to me. Having been forced to use WSAD in the
past why anyone would be happier with WSAD is beyond me. It's a steaming
pile of (&^.


0
Comment actions Permalink

This is a suprising statement to me. Having been
forced to use WSAD in the
past why anyone would be happier with WSAD is beyond
me. It's a steaming
pile of (&^.


(n.b.: I was speaking about using it's tools for web development support, as a complement to what I do in IDEA. I would NEVER use it for anything else (included using the test environment: even if I have to deploy on WAS, for now I rather test on tomcat in IDEA as it's far quicker). Java development support in IDEA 4 is far superior to the one in WSAD 5.1.1. I'm curious about what will happen when WSAD 6 will be based on eclipse 3, though).

0

Please sign in to leave a comment.