RHQ plugin development enhancements

Simeon Pinder spinder at redhat.com
Wed Aug 29 12:36:20 UTC 2012



----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lukas Krejci" <lkrejci at redhat.com>
> To: rhq-devel at 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 at redhat.com>
> > To: rhq-devel at 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 at lists.fedorahosted.org
> > https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> rhq-devel mailing list
> rhq-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel
> 


More information about the rhq-devel mailing list