"Finally"? Redhat was the only distro with a functional java package
(rather than the binary installer) for a long time. Sun and Redhat
have been playing nicey-nice with each other for ages, relative to the
linux community at large. :)
On Nov 5, 7:41 pm, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 11:11 pm, Mark Space <marksp...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> > > One can't help but wonder whether the next step is the integration
of
> > > NetBeans into Eclipse...
>
> > I doubt it. This move is centered on the server space. More likely
> > you'd see a merger of JBoss and Glassfish, or at least a feature swap.
> > (But even a merger of those, I don't see as very likely.) I don't see
> > anything that points at one side giving up their desktop IDE.
>
> Mark & Lew:
>
> Perhaps a solution to keep everyone happy would be for the NetBeans
> team to follow on Borland/CodeGear's footsteps? NetGear would be able
> to contribute and impart their own kind on magic to an Eclipse base.
>
> Competition is extremely im****tant, and I would be very worried to see
> Eclipse swallowing everybody else, the way they did with JBuilder.
>
> The one item in my wish list is that all Java IDE providers:
>
> - Had a common directory and file structure for projects
> - Allowed me to easily keep all the *.java files in a separate
> directory, accessible by all the IDEs that I use.
*dons asbestos undergarments*
People who voluntarily store critical parts of their source (like GUI
layouts) in such a way that only one tool can possibly build it are
creating their own problem, regardless of language.
*removes asbestos undergarments*
For myself, I've solved both of these issues with Apache Maven, which
is capable of generating projects for several IDEs from a common
codebase and project file. The process for getting a working eclipse
environment for the projects I'm working on right now is:
1. check out.
2. mvn eclipse:eclipse
3. Eclipse/Im****t/Existing Projects
I found plugins for IDEA and Netbeans project generation, too.
Rather than impose a specific standard source layout on every single
tool[0], we should probably demand simpler, better-do***ented formats
for project metadata and clearer conceptual mappings between tool-
specific concepts (like Netbeans' "modules") and standard concepts
(like "JAR").
[0] I expect to be burned at the stake by other maven users for
uttering that sentence. :)
|
