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.
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Oops, I meant defect 20491!
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...
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.
For what it's worth, I completely agree with you and added my last few
votes.
Robbie
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...
>
>
continue to succeed.
>
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.
>
:)
>
easy.
>
source root are included in that module."
>
position), when do you think you will be able to address it? Any preliminary ideas on how it will be addressed?
>
may cause them to rethink their planned 4.0 purchases.
>
>
>
I've added some votes as well. Although I solved our problems with this, I can see others needing what is described.
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...
>
>
am a big fan of this product and want to see it continue to succeed.
>
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.
>
will have an impact on your plans for world domination :)
>
However, in my case (and I suspect others), this isn't that easy.
>
http://www.intellij.net/tracker/idea/viewSCR?publicId=20491:
and which directories (or perhaps packages) within that source root are
included in that module."
>
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?
>
problem that will effect a number of your customers and may cause them to
rethink their planned 4.0 purchases.
>
it is a great product.
>
>
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...
will
>
plan
>
>
>
I
so
root
will
that
>
>