Re: A question about the New Java Project wizard

cL wrote:

> i think we could have one Java Project wizard and have it go through the 
> following steps:
> 
> 1. Specify Project name and Project File Location
> 
> 2. Specify Source Locations.
>    -default: <prj_path>/src
>    -user can add more directories (that are java or not)
>    -directories determined to be java roots are added (to Packages node) 
> without further interaction
>    -directories determined to not be related to java are added (to 
> Sources node) without further interaction


Chris,

I think it would be quite confusing to show general directories and Java 
source directories in the same list. Since they serve a different 
purpose, they should be separate.

This would also lead to the situation that this single list shows some 
Java directories (those added by the user plus the default directory 
<prj_path>/src), but not others (those that are subdirectories of the 
general directories added by the user). So what would at the end be 
displayed under Packages would not directly correspond to what was 
previously displayed in the wizard panel.

I suggest a different solution, see my reply to Ann.

Petr


> 
>    -Finish is enabled starting on this panel.
> 
> 2a. Specify Java Sources [Add Java Roots] (optional)
>    -if user adds directories that contain java stuff they are asked if 
> they want to add the java roots. this is to catch the case where a 
> source root added is either too deep or shallow for the java content it 
> contains.
> 
> 3. Specify Resources (needs to say something that clearly links this to 
> the classpath)
>    -default: empty list
> 
> i would be happy to have the wizard stop here. worst case has 4 steps 
> that aren't too obtrusive and are all the user needs to get a new 
> project up and running. we could add another step for specifying outputs 
> but i wonder if most folks will be ready to deal with outputs at this 
> point. it seems to me that for complicated projects that have  a lot of 
> existing sources the build mechanism will probably be specified by ant 
> or something similar whereas users building stuff that will be done 
> wholly within the the won't be ready or know enough about their project 
> to want/need to fuss with tweaking output settings here.
> 
> i'd also suggest providing some magic for the user in that if they 
> create a project where the source roots they add are empty we drop in a 
> place holder package and class. this will help steer the user toward the 
> Package node and make it more obvious that the project wizard did 
> something worth their time. for users adding existing sources this 
> clearly doesn't make sense.
> 
> cheers,
> cL
> Ann Sunhachawee wrote:
> 
>> Yes if it makes sense to create all those projects with existing 
>> sources.  however,  i did not argue that empty/basic are two separate 
>> project templates. (Java Projects has consolidated the concept of 
>> empty and basic, and I think refer to it as Basic)
>>
>> Part of what should be addressed is how we present the templates. If 
>> they are categorized well, then user is not hit with reading through N 
>> project template types in a flat list.
>>
>> Looking at some competing IDEs:
>> MS Visual Studio: No way to add existing files during wizard. New 
>> Project will usually add some sample files appropriate to the project 
>> type by default.
>> Eclipse (2.0) - Can add existing files. No sample files added. I think 
>> the wizard is confusing when you do reach a page where you can "Add 
>> Existing Sources" but really you cannot add unless you chose the 
>> project location to be an existing directory - which is not the default.
>> Oracle JDeveloper - Has templates for Project with existing sources as 
>> well as just Project.
>> JBuilder - only had access to old version (5.0) - doesn't allow for 
>> adding exsiting files during project wizard.
>>
>> My main issue is that I do not want to lead the user through 
>> unnecessary wizard pages or read even more text in wizard panes (which 
>> they don't) if it doesn't concern them. If Chris can address this by 
>> creating 1 project type, then I'd be happy, but the proposals on the 
>> table don't seem to address that concern.
>>
>> Ann
>>
>> Svata Dedic wrote:
>>
>>> Ann Sunhachawee wrote:
>>>
>>>> To get my 2c in before rework happens .. I disagree with 
>>>> consolidating the basic/empty with the project from existing 
>>>> sources. We would like our users to get through wizards as quickly 
>>>> as possible, and I think this distinction in templates is helpful up 
>>>> front.
>>>>
>>> Aha. So I imagine other technologies will match the java one:
>>> So there will probably be "Basic project", "Empty project", "From 
>>> existing sources", "Basic RMI", "Empty RMI", "RMI from existing 
>>> sources", "Basic CORBA", "Empty CORBA", "CORBA from existing 
>>> sources", ... ?
>>>
>>> -Svata
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>
>