what about perforce integration, I didn't see any good plugin to handle this. many programmers want this. "Norris Shelton" <no_reply@spam.com> wrote in message news:ce3h3u$s3m$2@is.intellij.net...
JSP 2.0, XHTML, CSS, JavaScript. The only thing that would be better would be a GUI for JSF support.
GUI to generate html layout with tags? I think that's called Fabrique :)
No it's not. Fabrique is more like Apple's WebObjects :). However a WYSIWYG for HTML/JSP like the one from IBM's WSAD would be very useful. Of course, with support for JSF would be better :).
That's it exactly. We have implemented a few projects in MVC (Struts), now it is time to take the plunge. It looks like it will be primarily JSF. I don't like the idea of manually coding what is designed to be a GUI function.
Robert S. Sfeir wrote:
>GUI to generate html layout with tags? I think that's called Fabrique :) But I know what you mean, you're thinking Studio Creator. > >R
No NONONONO! JSF is the next aspectJ failure. If you want that, make a plugin! First of all: not everyone creates webapps, and second of all: most of those who do uses real graphics artists to create views. They're NOT going to learn Java ServerFeces. Keep JSF out of IDEA.
Take another hit on the crack pipe! This is a top priority for the next version of IDEA and its not a plugin any more so than their gui creator is.
If IDEA does not keep up in the web dev arena they will certainly be overtaken by the eclipse behemoth.
I know at least 7 developers who would drop IDEA in a heart beat if it stops supporting web dev (myself not included).
+10000 to making IDEA even friendlier for web dev like studio creator. The sun product is a pig and I would love to see what Intellij could put together. Fabrique is right out since its a proprietary technology.
Thanks, steve
Patrik Andersson wrote:
No NONONONO! JSF is the next aspectJ failure. If you want that, make a plugin! First of all: not everyone creates webapps, and second of all: most of those who do uses real graphics artists to create views. They're NOT going to learn Java ServerFeces. Keep JSF out of IDEA.
Ok LALA Land... let's get back to reality. Go check the votes on this issue, and we'll talk about how no one wants to use it and blablabla. Let's not start this whole shabang, you're wasting your time. You should do a search on Pallada slated features to see yours is a lost cause. Deal with it.
> No NONONONO! JSF is the next aspectJ failure. If you > want that, make a plugin! First of all: not everyone > creates webapps, and second of all: most of those who > do uses real graphics artists to create views. > They're NOT going to learn Java ServerFeces. Keep JSF > out of IDEA.
I don't know what's worse, the fact that somebody makes this statement or the fact that somebody actually agrees with them. Ridiculous.
Personally I virtually never use IDEA for anything BUT webapps and have absolutely no use whatsoever for the GUI Designer which to me is a total waste of time... however I understand that Java is more than just webapps and the GUI Designer to many people is an important feature. Point is I'm not going to make a stupid statement like "not everybody creates Swing/AWT programs and so the GUI Designer should be removed".
One of the primary reasons people use IDEA is it's flexibility and support for ALL types of Java application (yeah I know J2ME support is still a little weak but it's a relatively new technology and I'm sure JB will increase their support for it in time).
I virtually never have any contact with graphics designers, their job is to just mock up pretty screens in Photoshop or whatever... I would never expect them to do anything with views or HTML or any kind of programming at all. I take their "screenshots" and implement them in HTML/JSP and create the enterprise functionality behind the site. Again I realize this is not the case for everybody and in some places there is more separation of "design" and programming but this is the way I work in my company and I use IDEA because it enables me to work like this.
I suppose ignorance is bliss, but I'm not sure how anybody can compare what is a fundamental J2EE Standard to a non-standardized API. Also whilst I don't use it myself I would hardly call AspectJ a failure, ok it's not a Standard but it has thousands of users all over the world who not only support it but also encourage it's use. It might not be for me and it might not be true mainstream but it's hardly a failure.
- you can create GUIs without the GUI designer. - you can create webapps without JSF
I do both. I've used the GUI designer too and frankly, I can do without it too.
The important issue here is that: 1) people who want JSF are all on the ShoutingTrain. THe shout, rant and rave about how they want JSF now. I bet you those were the same people shouting about AspectJ support in idea. That feature was ripped out, remember? The ShoutingTrain-folks care only about the current set of shiny toys, and are also the ones shouting about how taglibs were going to make web-designers want to code jsp pages. It's just not going to happend! 2) You can use IDEA to develop JSF apps NAOW. The difference in IDEA having special JSF tools and not having them is a feature-sheet difference. It's one of those things that'll make you beleive that eclipse is actually in the same ball-court as IDEA is. JBoss and Orion have a very similar feature-sheet, they're not in the same ball-court.
The reason I mentioned AspectJ in this context is that it was the previous feature "everybody" shouted about. And as it turns out, all the work put into that turned to shite and was removed from IDEA because nobody actually uses it.
Actually AspectJ support was not yanked. it was postponed to another release. We might even see it back in 5.0. You can still use AspectJ in IDEA with limitations.
Your point is made clearer in this post. Your first post sounded like a whine more than a straight up intelligent opinion like below.
People complained about the GUI designer, and now from what I can tell quite a few people use it and like it, and further when I look at some of the open UIs for web app servers, I can see that JetBrains uses it to some degree.
I think that it will not cost more resources to have the support for JSF, it's not something that's going to go away, it's got too much weight behind it. If JB is going to write the next rev to fully support JSP, JSF, HTML, JavaScript etc... to give IDEA the full power of J2EE development, then they need to put in JSF otherwise it simply looks silly, and from a marketing standpoint (yes that does matter this is how they make money) they would get completely criticized for not supporting that.
Sorry Patrik, as the other Rob said I also took your previous post as a whine against J2EE in general not simply GUIs for JSF. :)
I actually agree with you in some respect. I can quite happily use JSF in IDEA at the moment and so long as things like JSP 2.0 support and the like are fully recognized I can do without a GUI for it. If it were up to me there would be not GUI Designer also, however I can understand why people like and want that feature even though it's something I will never use myself.
I wasn't arguing with you for or against having JSF GUI support, I was arguing with the fact that from reading what you said you gave me the impression that you were against J2EE (and in particular JSF) as a technology, not just adding specific support for it. I apologies for my misinterpretation.
You must have swallowed that line from Sun about how the graphic artists can use JSPs to make the views and developers can code the java behind it. Never going to happen. I have yet to hear of one shop that does it this way. The point is that JSP is java development. I am only proficient in HTML/CSS, etc because that is the only way to expose my code. Anything that can make my life in that arena is a plus. JSF is intended to do just that.
I would really like to use Fabrique, but it does not look like it is intended for me. If it were, it would: 1) support JSF - you can't fight the standard when everyone else is supporting it 2) be more IntelliJ-like
Sun Java Studio Creator is $99 and supports GUI drag-n-drop JSF. There are tons of changes scheduled for IntelliJ 5. If full JSF support was added, there would be no reason to consider Studio Creator or Eclipse.
Patrik Andersson wrote:
>No NONONONO! JSF is the next aspectJ failure. If you want that, make a plugin! First of all: not everyone creates webapps, and second of all: most of those who do uses real graphics artists to create views. They're NOT going to learn Java ServerFeces. Keep JSF out of IDEA.
Better, subversion (svn) integration, Apache.org folk are working with eclipse group to make svn a first class citizen RSN. Many want svn to be on par with cvs support in Intellij now! -phil
I'll buy that for a $, only issue to using svn is good client support in idea. There is a plugin which doesn't work in 4.5 anymore, is not stable, and like any new product it needs the support and adoption of other products for it to be widely adopted. Subversion is definitely a good client to add.
Patrik, total bull, I used and use AspectJ. I couldn't care less for JFS I do no web developement. People stopped to shout about AspectJ because it doesn't make sense. We just moved to the product that works better for us - in this case it is ecliple. Nowdays I use IntelliJ maybe couple days a week to do some refactoring. But for us it would definitely make no sense to pay money for upgrade to 5.0
- you can create GUIs without the GUI designer. - you can create webapps without JSF
>
I do both. I've used the GUI designer too and frankly, I can do without it
too. >
The important issue here is that: 1) people who want JSF are all on the ShoutingTrain. THe shout, rant and
rave about how they want JSF now. I bet you those were the same people shouting about AspectJ support in idea. That feature was ripped out, remember? The ShoutingTrain-folks care only about the current set of shiny toys, and are also the ones shouting about how taglibs were going to make web-designers want to code jsp pages. It's just not going to happend!
2) You can use IDEA to develop JSF apps NAOW. The difference in IDEA
having special JSF tools and not having them is a feature-sheet difference. It's one of those things that'll make you beleive that eclipse is actually in the same ball-court as IDEA is. JBoss and Orion have a very similar feature-sheet, they're not in the same ball-court. >
The reason I mentioned AspectJ in this context is that it was the previous
feature "everybody" shouted about. And as it turns out, all the work put into that turned to shite and was removed from IDEA because nobody actually uses it. >
Better, subversion (svn) integration, Apache.org folk are working with eclipse group to make svn a first class citizen RSN. Many want svn to be on par with cvs support in Intellij now! -phil
This gets my vote - I have started moving my personal repositories to svn because several of my clients have either announced plans to move their repositories or have asked me to move the repositories for them. No bad thing.
For what it is worth, I am quite happy with svn. Support is starting to show up in some other IDEs I use as well.
I do hope that the JBers can get access to a good, working plugin soon. At this time, getting a javahl lib for MacOS X is not trivial, but it appears that it should get better with time.
I note with some concern that the SvnUp plugin at tigris appears to have stalled at 0.8. Certainly, I cannot blame them for wanting to wait out the API changes involved with IDEA 4.5, but now that it is out, perhaps it is time for a new version.
IMHO, the best would be combination of both Perforce and PerforceDirect. PerforceDirect tries to support refactoring and typical file handling cases but no UI, Submit, etc.
I just wonder if JetBrains will be using subversion for the IDEA code itself. They switched to CVS when they decided to make the new CVS integration (oh well, not new anymore for 4.5) so they could get "hand-on experience" with the tool. If they do, it will be interesting to hear stories about it.
I think you misinterpreted me. My point is that graphics artists create views as photoshop .psd files and might generate html files from them. Tops. I - being a/the java developer - write the jsp pages and use taglibs as I see fit. And that's also the reason (I know, my point is already across, this is getting old) that, imho, makes JSF dumb.
That type of user interface tool is good for making money as a tool vendor since such tools tend to look very good from a manager perspective. They're going to want to spend money on shiny toys that look like time-savers.
Personally I know webb-app development now. I don't need more tools for that particular part of creating applications. There's got to be an end to this search for the silver web-app creating bullet. It's a non-trivial problem domain.
I really like how IDEA isn't following that usual Supports Product Y train. You get products that support a zillion other products, but they aren't really usable anyway because the editor or some other totally central feature blows. IDEA helps me in every place (I can think of) I need to do what I need my way! If I wanted shoddy wizards that do half the work in a flashy animated way I'd create them myself.
I'm not arguing against having lots of tool support, but I don't want time wasted adding "dumb" support for a zillion tools. "Painting" web-apps is.. dumb, just like "painting" whole desktop apps is dumb.
All that rantage aside, I do want intelligent code sense features for CSS, Javascript, etc, I've wanted that for a long time. Those are useful features that help in the task that javadevelopers do anyway. No new new bullshit revolutionary best-thing-since-sliced-bread draw-your-pages JSF.
what about perforce integration, I didn't see any good plugin to handle
this. many programmers want this.
"Norris Shelton" <no_reply@spam.com> wrote in message
news:ce3h3u$s3m$2@is.intellij.net...
GUI to generate html layout with tags? I think that's called Fabrique :) But I know what you mean, you're thinking Studio Creator.
R
Robert S. Sfeir wrote:
No it's not. Fabrique is more like Apple's WebObjects :).
However a WYSIWYG for HTML/JSP like the one from IBM's WSAD would be
very useful. Of course, with support for JSF would be better :).
Ahmed.
That's it exactly. We have implemented a few projects in MVC (Struts),
now it is time to take the plunge. It looks like it will be primarily
JSF. I don't like the idea of manually coding what is designed to be a
GUI function.
Robert S. Sfeir wrote:
>GUI to generate html layout with tags? I think that's called Fabrique :) But I know what you mean, you're thinking Studio Creator.
>
>R
>
No NONONONO! JSF is the next aspectJ failure. If you want that, make a plugin! First of all: not everyone creates webapps, and second of all: most of those who do uses real graphics artists to create views. They're NOT going to learn Java ServerFeces. Keep JSF out of IDEA.
+1
Take another hit on the crack pipe!
This is a top priority for the next version of IDEA and its not a plugin
any more so than their gui creator is.
If IDEA does not keep up in the web dev arena they will certainly be
overtaken by the eclipse behemoth.
I know at least 7 developers who would drop IDEA in a heart beat if it
stops supporting web dev (myself not included).
+10000 to making IDEA even friendlier for web dev like studio creator.
The sun product is a pig and I would love to see what Intellij could put
together. Fabrique is right out since its a proprietary technology.
Thanks,
steve
Patrik Andersson wrote:
Ok LALA Land... let's get back to reality. Go check the votes on this issue, and we'll talk about how no one wants to use it and blablabla. Let's not start this whole shabang, you're wasting your time. You should do a search on Pallada slated features to see yours is a lost cause. Deal with it.
R
> No NONONONO! JSF is the next aspectJ failure. If you
> want that, make a plugin! First of all: not everyone
> creates webapps, and second of all: most of those who
> do uses real graphics artists to create views.
> They're NOT going to learn Java ServerFeces. Keep JSF
> out of IDEA.
I don't know what's worse, the fact that somebody makes this statement or the fact that somebody actually agrees with them. Ridiculous.
Personally I virtually never use IDEA for anything BUT webapps and have absolutely no use whatsoever for the GUI Designer which to me is a total waste of time... however I understand that Java is more than just webapps and the GUI Designer to many people is an important feature. Point is I'm not going to make a stupid statement like "not everybody creates Swing/AWT programs and so the GUI Designer should be removed".
One of the primary reasons people use IDEA is it's flexibility and support for ALL types of Java application (yeah I know J2ME support is still a little weak but it's a relatively new technology and I'm sure JB will increase their support for it in time).
I virtually never have any contact with graphics designers, their job is to just mock up pretty screens in Photoshop or whatever... I would never expect them to do anything with views or HTML or any kind of programming at all. I take their "screenshots" and implement them in HTML/JSP and create the enterprise functionality behind the site. Again I realize this is not the case for everybody and in some places there is more separation of "design" and programming but this is the way I work in my company and I use IDEA because it enables me to work like this.
I suppose ignorance is bliss, but I'm not sure how anybody can compare what is a fundamental J2EE Standard to a non-standardized API. Also whilst I don't use it myself I would hardly call AspectJ a failure, ok it's not a Standard but it has thousands of users all over the world who not only support it but also encourage it's use. It might not be for me and it might not be true mainstream but it's hardly a failure.
Thing is this:
- you can create GUIs without the GUI designer.
- you can create webapps without JSF
I do both. I've used the GUI designer too and frankly, I can do without it too.
The important issue here is that:
1) people who want JSF are all on the ShoutingTrain. THe shout, rant and rave about how they want JSF now. I bet you those were the same people shouting about AspectJ support in idea. That feature was ripped out, remember? The ShoutingTrain-folks care only about the current set of shiny toys, and are also the ones shouting about how taglibs were going to make web-designers want to code jsp pages. It's just not going to happend!
2) You can use IDEA to develop JSF apps NAOW. The difference in IDEA having special JSF tools and not having them is a feature-sheet difference. It's one of those things that'll make you beleive that eclipse is actually in the same ball-court as IDEA is. JBoss and Orion have a very similar feature-sheet, they're not in the same ball-court.
The reason I mentioned AspectJ in this context is that it was the previous feature "everybody" shouted about. And as it turns out, all the work put into that turned to shite and was removed from IDEA because nobody actually uses it.
Use Fabrique if you need "Cold Fusion" apps.
Actually AspectJ support was not yanked. it was postponed to another release. We might even see it back in 5.0. You can still use AspectJ in IDEA with limitations.
Your point is made clearer in this post. Your first post sounded like a whine more than a straight up intelligent opinion like below.
People complained about the GUI designer, and now from what I can tell quite a few people use it and like it, and further when I look at some of the open UIs for web app servers, I can see that JetBrains uses it to some degree.
I think that it will not cost more resources to have the support for JSF, it's not something that's going to go away, it's got too much weight behind it. If JB is going to write the next rev to fully support JSP, JSF, HTML, JavaScript etc... to give IDEA the full power of J2EE development, then they need to put in JSF otherwise it simply looks silly, and from a marketing standpoint (yes that does matter this is how they make money) they would get completely criticized for not supporting that.
R
Sorry Patrik, as the other Rob said I also took your previous post as a whine against J2EE in general not simply GUIs for JSF. :)
I actually agree with you in some respect. I can quite happily use JSF in IDEA at the moment and so long as things like JSP 2.0 support and the like are fully recognized I can do without a GUI for it. If it were up to me there would be not GUI Designer also, however I can understand why people like and want that feature even though it's something I will never use myself.
I wasn't arguing with you for or against having JSF GUI support, I was arguing with the fact that from reading what you said you gave me the impression that you were against J2EE (and in particular JSF) as a technology, not just adding specific support for it. I apologies for my misinterpretation.
You must have swallowed that line from Sun about how the graphic artists
can use JSPs to make the views and developers can code the java behind
it. Never going to happen. I have yet to hear of one shop that does it
this way. The point is that JSP is java development. I am only
proficient in HTML/CSS, etc because that is the only way to expose my
code. Anything that can make my life in that arena is a plus. JSF is
intended to do just that.
I would really like to use Fabrique, but it does not look like it is
intended for me. If it were, it would:
1) support JSF - you can't fight the standard when everyone else is
supporting it
2) be more IntelliJ-like
Sun Java Studio Creator is $99 and supports GUI drag-n-drop JSF. There
are tons of changes scheduled for IntelliJ 5. If full JSF support was
added, there would be no reason to consider Studio Creator or Eclipse.
Patrik Andersson wrote:
>No NONONONO! JSF is the next aspectJ failure. If you want that, make a plugin! First of all: not everyone creates webapps, and second of all: most of those who do uses real graphics artists to create views. They're NOT going to learn Java ServerFeces. Keep JSF out of IDEA.
>
Better, subversion (svn) integration, Apache.org folk are working with eclipse group to make svn a first class citizen RSN. Many want svn to be on par with cvs support in Intellij now!
-phil
I'll buy that for a $, only issue to using svn is good client support in idea. There is a plugin which doesn't work in 4.5 anymore, is not stable, and like any new product it needs the support and adoption of other products for it to be widely adopted. Subversion is definitely a good client to add.
R
Patrik,
total bull, I used and use AspectJ. I couldn't care less for JFS I do no web
developement. People stopped to shout about AspectJ because it doesn't make
sense. We just moved to the product that works better for us - in this case
it is ecliple. Nowdays I use IntelliJ maybe couple days a week to do some
refactoring. But for us it would definitely make no sense to pay money for
upgrade to 5.0
Regards,
Alex Oscherov
"Patrik Andersson" <pandersson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:25824047.1090930492423.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net...
>
>
too.
>
rave about how they want JSF now. I bet you those were the same people
shouting about AspectJ support in idea. That feature was ripped out,
remember? The ShoutingTrain-folks care only about the current set of shiny
toys, and are also the ones shouting about how taglibs were going to make
web-designers want to code jsp pages. It's just not going to happend!
having special JSF tools and not having them is a feature-sheet difference.
It's one of those things that'll make you beleive that eclipse is actually
in the same ball-court as IDEA is. JBoss and Orion have a very similar
feature-sheet, they're not in the same ball-court.
>
feature "everybody" shouted about. And as it turns out, all the work put
into that turned to shite and was removed from IDEA because nobody actually
uses it.
>
I had contact to Eclipse developers and they said, they do not plan to
implement SVN in the near future, because of time constraints.
Tom
In article <1073516.1090949702581.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net>,
Phillip Lindsay <no_mail@jetbrains.com> wrote:
This gets my vote - I have started moving my personal repositories to
svn because several of my clients have either announced plans to move
their repositories or have asked me to move the repositories for them.
No bad thing.
For what it is worth, I am quite happy with svn. Support is starting to
show up in some other IDEs I use as well.
I do hope that the JBers can get access to a good, working plugin soon.
At this time, getting a javahl lib for MacOS X is not trivial, but it
appears that it should get better with time.
I note with some concern that the SvnUp plugin at tigris appears to have
stalled at 0.8. Certainly, I cannot blame them for wanting to wait out
the API changes involved with IDEA 4.5, but now that it is out, perhaps
it is time for a new version.
Scott
"Rambabu Talasila" <talasilar@yahoo.com> writes:
what about PerforceDirect?
Hmm. This is contrary to what I heard from collab.net executives yesterday morning.
-phil
http://subclipse.tigris.org/
IMHO, the best would be combination of both Perforce and
PerforceDirect. PerforceDirect tries to support refactoring
and typical file handling cases but no UI, Submit, etc.
r.
Chad Urso McDaniel wrote:
>>what about perforce integration, I didn't see any good plugin to handle
>>this. many programmers want this.
Subversion is planned for version 5.0 now.
http://www.intellij.net/tracker/idea/viewSCR?publicId=3860
Nice.
Well, I've talked to the Eclipse guys, not the Collab.net guys.
Tom
I just wonder if JetBrains will be using subversion for the IDEA code itself. They switched to CVS when they decided to make the new CVS integration (oh well, not new anymore for 4.5) so they could get "hand-on experience" with the tool. If they do, it will be interesting to hear stories about it.
In article <16088042.1090962597596.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net>,
Phillip Lindsay <no_mail@jetbrains.com> wrote:
Which is contrary? That IDEA would support it, or that Eclipse would
not?
Scott
Norris,
I think you misinterpreted me. My point is that graphics artists create views as photoshop .psd files and might generate html files from them. Tops. I - being a/the java developer - write the jsp pages and use taglibs as I see fit. And that's also the reason (I know, my point is already across, this is getting old) that, imho, makes JSF dumb.
That type of user interface tool is good for making money as a tool vendor since such tools tend to look very good from a manager perspective. They're going to want to spend money on shiny toys that look like time-savers.
Personally I know webb-app development now. I don't need more tools for that particular part of creating applications. There's got to be an end to this search for the silver web-app creating bullet. It's a non-trivial problem domain.
I really like how IDEA isn't following that usual Supports Product Y train. You get products that support a zillion other products, but they aren't really usable anyway because the editor or some other totally central feature blows. IDEA helps me in every place (I can think of) I need to do what I need my way! If I wanted shoddy wizards that do half the work in a flashy animated way I'd create them myself.
I'm not arguing against having lots of tool support, but I don't want time wasted adding "dumb" support for a zillion tools. "Painting" web-apps is.. dumb, just like "painting" whole desktop apps is dumb.
All that rantage aside, I do want intelligent code sense features for CSS, Javascript, etc, I've wanted that for a long time. Those are useful features that help in the task that javadevelopers do anyway. No new new bullshit revolutionary best-thing-since-sliced-bread draw-your-pages JSF.
No, IntelliJ will be using Perforce to develop 5.0. Hopefully the native Perforce integration in 5.0 will be as good as the CVS integration is in 4.5!
-Jason
Have you voted for the JavaScript request?
No, no, I heard that Drool will be developed using arch!
j/k ;) Anyways, I think JetBrains actually used perforce before moving to CVS.