Inquiry about bug 20471

I apologize, in advance, for posting this to the EAP forum but I don't know how else to
get an update on this particular defect.

Defect 20471 was submitted about two months ago and is still in the 'To be discussed' state.

Are there any plans to do anything about this particular problem soon? As I tried to make clear in the bug report and associated postings, this is a serious problem for me and, judging from the submissions, for others also.

Thanks.

8 comments
Comment actions Permalink

Oops, I meant defect 20491!

0
Comment actions Permalink

Not in Aurora in any case.

--
Valentin Kipiatkov
Chief Scientist, Vice President of Product Development
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"

"David Macklem" <no_mail@jetbrains.com> wrote in message
news:15896134.1073400650592.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net...

Oops, I meant defect 20491!



0
Comment actions Permalink

Valentin,

Thanks for replying.

Please take the following comments as helpful, constructive criticism as I am a big fan of this product and want to see it continue to succeed.

I am concerned that the Aurora release of IntelliJ, with its constraints on the source directory structure, is going to limit its use in larger projects. Large projects are usually split into modules (or subprojects) so that each component can be dealt with separately, however, the requirement that these modules have different content roots is only a requirement from the IntelliJ IDE.

Given how good a product (in most respects) IntelliJ is, this deficiency will have an impact on your plans for world domination :)

Yes, we do have the option to restructure our source directories. However, in my case (and I suspect others), this isn't that easy.

Why isn't the fix to this bug as straightfoward as was suggested in http://www.intellij.net/tracker/idea/viewSCR?publicId=20491:
"It would be better to be able to designate, for a module, the source root and which directories (or perhaps packages) within that source root are included in that module."
???

If you really cannot do anything about this problem before the release of Aurora (and I strongly urge you to rethink that position), when do you think you will be able to address it? Any preliminary ideas on how it will be addressed?

Regardless, please do not minimize, ignore or forget this issue, it is a problem that will effect a number of your customers and may cause them to rethink their planned 4.0 purchases.

All that being said, Aurora is a good product, I just want to ensure that it is a great product.

0
Comment actions Permalink

For what it's worth, I completely agree with you and added my last few
votes.

Robbie

0
Comment actions Permalink

Could not agree more. This is a clear design flaw, a violation of
"symmetric/compilimentary/complete world" rule. In this particular case
if you have "exclude" functionality, the "include" functionality MUST
also be implemented. Not to mentioned that in no event an IDE can
insist on ANY predefined project/folder structure. It can suggest it in a
manual and/or create by default via some wizard stuff, but that's it,
nothing more than that is allowed.

--Oleg

P.S. Added my votes to it.

"David Macklem" <no_mail@jetbrains.com> wrote in message news:21382622.1073921427693.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net...

Valentin,

>

Thanks for replying.

>

Please take the following comments as helpful, constructive criticism as I am a big fan of this product and want to see it

continue to succeed.
>

I am concerned that the Aurora release of IntelliJ, with its constraints on the source directory structure, is going to limit its

use in larger projects. Large projects are usually split into modules (or subprojects) so that each component can be dealt with
separately, however, the requirement that these modules have different content roots is only a requirement from the IntelliJ IDE.
>

Given how good a product (in most respects) IntelliJ is, this deficiency will have an impact on your plans for world domination

:)
>

Yes, we do have the option to restructure our source directories. However, in my case (and I suspect others), this isn't that

easy.
>

Why isn't the fix to this bug as straightfoward as was suggested in http://www.intellij.net/tracker/idea/viewSCR?publicId=20491:
"It would be better to be able to designate, for a module, the source root and which directories (or perhaps packages) within that

source root are included in that module."

???

>

If you really cannot do anything about this problem before the release of Aurora (and I strongly urge you to rethink that

position), when do you think you will be able to address it? Any preliminary ideas on how it will be addressed?
>

Regardless, please do not minimize, ignore or forget this issue, it is a problem that will effect a number of your customers and

may cause them to rethink their planned 4.0 purchases.
>

All that being said, Aurora is a good product, I just want to ensure that it is a great product.

>
>


0
Comment actions Permalink

I've added some votes as well. Although I solved our problems with this, I can see others needing what is described.

0
Comment actions Permalink

If you really cannot do anything about this problem before the release

of Aurora (and I strongly urge you to rethink that position), when do you
think you will be able to address it? Any preliminary ideas on how it will
be addressed?

We really cannot afford doing this before Aurora release (which is coming
very soon!). Let's discuss this issue right after release of Aurora. We plan
to make a very short (2-3 months) release after Aurora (IDEA 4.1) and this
request has chance to be implemented there.

--
Valentin Kipiatkov
Chief Scientist, Vice President of Product Development
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"


"David Macklem" <no_mail@jetbrains.com> wrote in message
news:21382622.1073921427693.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net...

Valentin,

>

Thanks for replying.

>

Please take the following comments as helpful, constructive criticism as I

am a big fan of this product and want to see it continue to succeed.
>

I am concerned that the Aurora release of IntelliJ, with its constraints

on the source directory structure, is going to limit its use in larger
projects. Large projects are usually split into modules (or subprojects) so
that each component can be dealt with separately, however, the requirement
that these modules have different content roots is only a requirement from
the IntelliJ IDE.
>

Given how good a product (in most respects) IntelliJ is, this deficiency

will have an impact on your plans for world domination :)
>

Yes, we do have the option to restructure our source directories.

However, in my case (and I suspect others), this isn't that easy.
>

Why isn't the fix to this bug as straightfoward as was suggested in

http://www.intellij.net/tracker/idea/viewSCR?publicId=20491:

"It would be better to be able to designate, for a module, the source root

and which directories (or perhaps packages) within that source root are
included in that module."

???

>

If you really cannot do anything about this problem before the release

of Aurora (and I strongly urge you to rethink that position), when do you
think you will be able to address it? Any preliminary ideas on how it will
be addressed?
>

Regardless, please do not minimize, ignore or forget this issue, it is a

problem that will effect a number of your customers and may cause them to
rethink their planned 4.0 purchases.
>

All that being said, Aurora is a good product, I just want to ensure that

it is a great product.
>
>


0
Comment actions Permalink

I have to agree. They basically have the web app support back to where it
was (can support expanded working webapps) and can support webapps that it
builds. It's not the end, but it is still progress.

--
Norris Shelton
Web Developer
Sun Certified Java Programmer


"Valentin Kipiatkov (JetBrains)" <valentin@intellij.com> wrote in message
news:bu38iv$d5s$1@is.intellij.net...

If you really cannot do anything about this problem before the release

of Aurora (and I strongly urge you to rethink that position), when do you
think you will be able to address it? Any preliminary ideas on how it

will

be addressed?

>

We really cannot afford doing this before Aurora release (which is coming
very soon!). Let's discuss this issue right after release of Aurora. We

plan

to make a very short (2-3 months) release after Aurora (IDEA 4.1) and this
request has chance to be implemented there.

>

--
Valentin Kipiatkov
Chief Scientist, Vice President of Product Development
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.jetbrains.com
"Develop with pleasure!"

>
>

"David Macklem" <no_mail@jetbrains.com> wrote in message
news:21382622.1073921427693.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net...

Valentin,

>

Thanks for replying.

>

Please take the following comments as helpful, constructive criticism as

I

am a big fan of this product and want to see it continue to succeed.
>

I am concerned that the Aurora release of IntelliJ, with its constraints

on the source directory structure, is going to limit its use in larger
projects. Large projects are usually split into modules (or subprojects)

so

that each component can be dealt with separately, however, the requirement
that these modules have different content roots is only a requirement from
the IntelliJ IDE.
>

Given how good a product (in most respects) IntelliJ is, this deficiency

will have an impact on your plans for world domination :)
>

Yes, we do have the option to restructure our source directories.

However, in my case (and I suspect others), this isn't that easy.
>

Why isn't the fix to this bug as straightfoward as was suggested in

http://www.intellij.net/tracker/idea/viewSCR?publicId=20491:

"It would be better to be able to designate, for a module, the source

root

and which directories (or perhaps packages) within that source root are
included in that module."

???

>

If you really cannot do anything about this problem before the release

of Aurora (and I strongly urge you to rethink that position), when do you
think you will be able to address it? Any preliminary ideas on how it

will

be addressed?
>

Regardless, please do not minimize, ignore or forget this issue, it is a

problem that will effect a number of your customers and may cause them to
rethink their planned 4.0 purchases.
>

All that being said, Aurora is a good product, I just want to ensure

that

it is a great product.
>
>

>
>


0

Please sign in to leave a comment.