Are modules and projects redundant?

Precisely. This fragment will compile and run under either 1.3 or 1.4 (with a performance bump under 1.4). If compiled under 1.3, it will run under 1.4 (no performance bump). If compiled under 1.4, however, it will give a NoSuchMethodError when run under 1.3. All without requiring anything outside of java.lang!

--Dave

I did not understand - are you questioning something or make some
statements?

--
Valentin Kipiatkov
JetBrains, Inc
http://www.intellij.com
"Develop with pleasure!"

"Alain Ravet" <alain.ravet.list@wanadoo.be> wrote in message
news:bpvs8n$9iq$1@is.intellij.net...

Valentin Kipiatkov (JetBrains) wrote:

>

>>You can work in, and run a project in isolation, but not a module.
>>
>>
>
>Why not? You can create a new project and add this module to it. (If this
>module depend on some others it would make sense to add those modules as
>well.)
>
>

>

What is missing in a module, that requires us to wrap it in an - empty
(1-module) - project, to start working on it?

>

Once module sharing is implemented, we'll be able to wrap 1 single
module in multiple "empty" (1-module) project.
That will be possible, but I can't see any advantage/use for this

feature?!
>

Alain

>
>
>
>

Valentin Kipiatkov (JetBrains) wrote:

>I did not understand - are you questioning something or make some
>statements?

>

It's a genuine question : what are modules missing, to be "runnable",
"workable with"?
A corollary : should single modules be "runnable", what would be the
benefits of wrapping a project around a single module?

Alain

Rayz,
After some consideration I think that I like current IDEA solution more than
your proposal. Logically often modules don't form parent-child relationship
while they still share some common properties like compiler, JDK, libraries
and so on. Ability to specify and maintain these properties in one place
simplifies not only logical structure but maintainability of the project.
But logically project is not a module it has no source files ...

Regards,
Alex Oscherov

"Rayz" <no_mail@jetbrains.com> wrote in message
news:28205914.1069848102220.JavaMail.itn@is.intellij.net...

+I was going to disagree with you. I was going to point out that there

are

a number of things which it makes sense to set at the project level but

not

at the module level (to use the current terminology). But then I thought
about it and I could only come up with two things: the compiler and the

JDK.

Even with those, there is a case to be made for setting them per-module.

So

instead I find myself starting to agree...+

>

Yes, project settings are set in each of the included projects; if they

are not, then they are inherited from the parent.
>

As someone has already suggested, each project has a set of checkboxes

that allows it to override the settings in its child projects.
>

That way I could have a set of JARS for a project, then it can

automatically pick up a separate set of JARS when it is part of another
project ...
>

+Logically often modules don't form parent-child relationship while they still share some common properties like compiler, JDK, libraries
and so on.+

Not sure what you mean here. Modules are always a child of something, because they can't form projects on their own.

At the moment, I cannot see what a module gives you, that you don't get from a project.

Projects should have their own settings, or get overridden (optionally) when they form part of a larger project.

Rayz,
maybe small example can help. Let's imagine I have three modules: "business
logic", "administrative console" and "persistent schema" all these modules
are independent in terms that they have independent sources and use support
of the different libraries. But I still want to compile all of them using
the same compiler and test all of them using the same JDK. So it looks
convelient to me that now I can create project "server" and include all thee
modules into it. As a conclusion to make long things short I find it a good
idea to have projects that don't have source files of their own separate
from the modules that have some.

Regards,
Alex Oscherov

"Rayz" <no_mail@jetbrains.com> wrote in message
news:32317033.1070085230743.JavaMail.javamailuser@localhost...

+Logically often modules don't form parent-child relationship while they

still share some common properties like compiler, JDK, libraries

and so on.+

>

Not sure what you mean here. Modules are always a child of something,

because they can't form projects on their own.
>

At the moment, I cannot see what a module gives you, that you don't get

from a project.
>

Projects should have their own settings, or get overridden (optionally)

when they form part of a larger project.
>
>

But I believe intellij's intention is to allow each module to specify it's own jdk. So apparently, in some cases, different modules would use difference jdks within the same project.

This is the same flexibility offered in the "Workspace,project" organization: each project could specify it's own jdk, or could inherit it from a parent project, or could use the workspace default jdk.