It is the fault of the plug-in authors. Though in most cases, plugin options are legitimately set per-project.
Amnon I. Govrin wrote:
Hi.
Why are so many plug-in options in Project Properties instead of in IDE options?
Amnon
--
Erb
============================================================== "Most of you are familiar with the virtues of a programmer. There are three, of course: laziness, impatience, and hubris." - Larry Wall ==============================================================
I don't think that plugins like Tabifier, Sequence, simpleUML or ContextViewer (just to name a few) belong in the Project properties more than Appearance, Colors and Fonts, Completion, ...
I think that a better system would be to allow settings to be saved per project or globally of all of the above mentioned components. There was a discussion about that but I think that the need for change here is becoming more apparent because of the plethora of plugins that exist today.
Options should be "cascaded", i.e. defaults and then per project if user wants to.
For me it's annoying that the above mentioned plugins are in the project, as I don't want to set them up for every project. I am sure that for other people it would make sense to control Colors and Fonts per project.
It is the fault of the plug-in authors. Though in most cases, plugin options are legitimately set per-project.
>
Amnon I. Govrin wrote:
>
Hi.
>
Why are so many plug-in options in Project Properties instead of in IDE options?
>
Amnon
> >
> >
--
>
Erb
>
============================================================== "Most of you are familiar with the virtues of a programmer. There are three, of course: laziness, impatience, and hubris." - Larry Wall ==============================================================
I think the choices are either project-based or "code style scheme"-based.
I agree, tabifier should be based on code style scheme, just like all other code style settings. I'll look into doing it. I doubt that the other two users of the plugin will mind resetting their settings one last time. ;)
IMO allowing arbitrary combination of code style scheme (i.e., editing environment) with the project provides enough flexibility. Having "cascading" options makes it confusing (settings appear in two places) and difficult to use (unclear which setting overrides the other). I think that's why IntelliJ designed code style schemes, keyboard remapping, etc. to be independent of projects.
I spent a little time over the weekend moving tabifier's settings panel from project to IDE options. But there's a quirk, so before I upload it let me know if it is what you want.
1) The way it used to be (up to version 2.8, which is the latest published), tabifier settings were saved in the project file, so were unique to each project. 2) With a one-line change to the plugin.xml file, settings could have been saved to the iws (workspace) file, so would be unique to each workspace. 3) In my possibly-soon-to-be-uploaded version, tabifier settings are saved in IDEA's (application) settings file, so apply to all projects and workspaces.
Is #3 better than #1 or #2?
What I had hoped to do was to save the tabifier settings in the code style scheme, where the code style settings are kept. However, as far as I can tell, this is not available through openAPI. We'd need access to the CodeStyleManager, CodeStyleScheme and CodeStyleSettings. I currently use these (read-only) to obtain certain settings, like tab size. But ideally would like to add tabifier to the code style dialog (e.g., as a separate "multi-line alignment" tab) and have its settings saved right there. Unless somebody from JetBrains can supply me with info about how to do that, I think plugin developers stuck with one of the 3 options listed above.
I spent a little time over the weekend moving tabifier's settings panel
from
project to IDE options. But there's a quirk, so before I upload it let me know if it is what you want.
>
1) The way it used to be (up to version 2.8, which is the latest
published),
tabifier settings were saved in the project file, so were unique to each project. 2) With a one-line change to the plugin.xml file, settings could have been saved to the iws (workspace) file, so would be unique to each workspace. 3) In my possibly-soon-to-be-uploaded version, tabifier settings are saved in IDEA's (application) settings file, so apply to all projects and workspaces.
>
Is #3 better than #1 or #2?
>
What I had hoped to do was to save the tabifier settings in the code style scheme, where the code style settings are kept. However, as far as I can tell, this is not available through openAPI. We'd need access to the CodeStyleManager, CodeStyleScheme and CodeStyleSettings. I currently use these (read-only) to obtain certain settings, like tab size. But ideally would like to add tabifier to the code style dialog (e.g., as a separate "multi-line alignment" tab) and have its settings saved right there.
Unless
somebody from JetBrains can supply me with info about how to do that, I think plugin developers stuck with one of the 3 options listed above.
It is the fault of the plug-in authors. Though in most cases, plugin
options are legitimately set per-project.
Amnon I. Govrin wrote:
--
Erb
==============================================================
"Most of you are familiar with the virtues of a programmer.
There are three, of course: laziness, impatience, and hubris."
- Larry Wall
==============================================================
I don't think that plugins like Tabifier, Sequence, simpleUML or
ContextViewer (just to name a few) belong in the Project properties more
than Appearance, Colors and Fonts, Completion, ...
I think that a better system would be to allow settings to be saved per
project or globally of all of the above mentioned components. There was a
discussion about that but I think that the need for change here is becoming
more apparent because of the plethora of plugins that exist today.
Options should be "cascaded", i.e. defaults and then per project if user
wants to.
For me it's annoying that the above mentioned plugins are in the project, as
I don't want to set them up for every project. I am sure that for other
people it would make sense to control Colors and Fonts per project.
Amnon
"Erb" <dont@evenbother.com> wrote in message
news:bcahlo$9a9$1@is.intellij.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I think the choices are either project-based or "code style scheme"-based.
I agree, tabifier should be based on code style scheme, just like all other
code style settings. I'll look into doing it. I doubt that the other two
users of the plugin will mind resetting their settings one last time. ;)
IMO allowing arbitrary combination of code style scheme (i.e., editing
environment) with the project provides enough flexibility. Having
"cascading" options makes it confusing (settings appear in two places) and
difficult to use (unclear which setting overrides the other). I think
that's why IntelliJ designed code style schemes, keyboard remapping, etc. to
be independent of projects.
-Dave
Amnon,
I spent a little time over the weekend moving tabifier's settings panel from
project to IDE options. But there's a quirk, so before I upload it let me
know if it is what you want.
1) The way it used to be (up to version 2.8, which is the latest published),
tabifier settings were saved in the project file, so were unique to each
project.
2) With a one-line change to the plugin.xml file, settings could have been
saved to the iws (workspace) file, so would be unique to each workspace.
3) In my possibly-soon-to-be-uploaded version, tabifier settings are saved
in IDEA's (application) settings file, so apply to all projects and
workspaces.
Is #3 better than #1 or #2?
What I had hoped to do was to save the tabifier settings in the code style
scheme, where the code style settings are kept. However, as far as I can
tell, this is not available through openAPI. We'd need access to the
CodeStyleManager, CodeStyleScheme and CodeStyleSettings. I currently use
these (read-only) to obtain certain settings, like tab size. But ideally
would like to add tabifier to the code style dialog (e.g., as a separate
"multi-line alignment" tab) and have its settings saved right there. Unless
somebody from JetBrains can supply me with info about how to do that, I
think plugin developers stuck with one of the 3 options listed above.
-Dave
Personally I like 3 over 1 and 2 until a more generalized approach is
enabled in IntelliJ.
Amnon
"Dave Kriewall" <davek@wrq.com> wrote in message
news:bckuqq$654$1@is.intellij.net...
>
from
>
published),
>
>
Unless
>
>
>
OK, I'll upload that one, with the fix for your latest bug (illegal syntax,
missing semicolon).
-Dave
Cool!
"Dave Kriewall" <davek@wrq.com> wrote in message
news:bclgn0$hup$1@is.intellij.net...
syntax,
>
>