----- Original Message -----
From: "Lukas Krejci" <lkrejci(a)redhat.com>
To: rhq-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:03:14 PM
Subject: Re: RHQ plugin development enhancements
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Heiko W.Rupp" <hrupp(a)redhat.com>
> To: rhq-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 5:52:02 PM
> Subject: Re: RHQ plugin development enhancements
>
>
> Am 28.08.2012 um 08:52 schrieb Lukas Krejci:
>
> > +100 to an Eclipse plugin.
>
> I would not do that separately but via a JBossForge plugin, as
> Forge
> can run
> inside Eclipse and also standalone. While many users use Eclipse,
> many also
> don't.
>
Forge is strictly commandline - even the Eclipse integration is
strictly commandline.
It's just an Eclipse view with a Forge shell. I do not consider that
an integrated solution, sorry ;)
While I agree with you that not everyone is using Eclipse, I can use
the same argument for Forge
- while many users use Forge, many don't. ;)
JBossTools is the recommended developer toolkit for developing on
JBoss AS and is based on Eclipse.
I do think we should follow, us being the management platform for
JBoss AS
(and that says a former IJ user that doesn't use it only because it
crashes X for him).
A proper IDE integration is about usability and discoverability of
features - after all it's an UI.
That is something a commandline tool can never provide on the same
level (although the context
sensitive commandline completion in the forge shell is quite nice).
That is not to say we shouldn't have a Forge plugin, it's just that I
don't believe that's enough.
> > +100 to a graphical integration with the standalone container -
> > how
> > cool would
> > that be to have to leave your IDE and test your plugin
> > interactively. But I
> > must say that while the standalone container is quite powerful, I
> > find its CLI
> > quite terse and hard to remember (also having command history
> > would
> > help
>
> type help - and command history is there. But I agree that it has
> room for
> improvement.
>
> > there ;) ) - if we were to integrate it to an IDE, the standalone
> > pc's CLI
> > should be given some love.
>
> I think both should not be IDE only, but usable without an IDE.
> Because with an IDE
> we are tied in into one kind of IDE. Users that prefer a different
> one (or just
> a text editor) would be left out otherwise.
>
I agree, but I do not believe we can develop one tool that is both
integrated with an
IDE in a reasonable way and usable standalone.
+1. What's more likely is that
we'll have a barebones gui(likely Swing or web based) solution that i)shows just what
a user needs and ii)not tied to a specific ide followed by additional eclipse|Forge
plugins added/contributed later to support the additional functionality not already
provided by the ide. However while we're looking for the common denominator,
we'll probably follow the path that get's us a working tool the fastest.
Why would JBossTools and JBossForge exist as separate projects
otherwise?
> Heiko
>
> _______________________________________________
> rhq-devel mailing list
> rhq-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel
>
_______________________________________________
rhq-devel mailing list
rhq-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel