Re: A question about the New Java Project wizard

Ann,

I agree with your goal that the wizards, and especially the Basic 
wizard, should have as few steps as possible. That is a good goal and we 
should not be adding arbitrary panels that only clutter the wizard UI.

I believe the above goal can be achieved even if we combine the Basic 
project and the Project from existing sources into one template.

This is how such a combined wizard would look for the case of Java 
projects - for Web projects it would be analogous:

1. Specify Project name and Project File Location
Also, this panel will have a checkbox "Add existing sources to this 
project" (or similar). This is the only piece of UI that is added 
compared to the current Basic project wizard.

Now there are two branches of the wizard. If the "Add existing sources" 
checkbox is unchecked, then the next panels are:

2a. Specify Java source locations
    -default: <prj_path>/src
    -user can add more Java source directories
    -Finish is enabled starting on this panel

3a. Specify resources
     ....

....
etc.


If on the other hand the "Add existing sources" checkbox is checked, 
then the wizard proceeds as follows:

2b. Specify (general) source directories
    -user can add arbitrary directories containing files in general
    -at least one directory must be specified

3b. Specify Java source locations
    -the wizard scans the directories added in panel 2b for Java source
     directories and puts them to the list by default
    -user can add more Java source directories or remove the ones
     added by the wizard
    -Finish is enabled starting on this panel

4b. Specify resources
     ....

....
etc.


So if the checkbox on panel 1 is unchecked (which is the default), the 
wizard is no more complicated than the current Basic wizard (except for 
the checkbox itself). The advantage is obviously that we cut down the 
number of wizards to one half.

Comments ?
Petr

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.
> 
> This allows the user interested in starting a fresh project to start up 
> quickly, without having to pause and understand the concept of "Java 
> roots" or consider adding source or resource directories. If the user 
> creates a empty/basic project and picks a project home that contains 
> files, then perhaps we launch into Project from Existing Sources at that 
> point if they confirm they indeed are trying to create a new project 
> with those sources. The situation I'd like to avoid is that a user ends 
> up with a hybrid project - part of their sources, with sample app files.
> 
> -ann
> 
> cL wrote:
> 
>> sure, this sound fine. the spec will get a major update after the 
>> usability test results are compiled and analyzed and i will add this 
>> to the bits that need to be re-worked.
>>
>> thanks,
>> cL
>>
>> Petr Jiricka wrote:
>>
>>> Team,
>>>
>>> I have one question about creating new Java projects. According to 
>>> the UI spec, there will be two wizards: one for new empty/basic 
>>> project, and  one for project from existing sources. Well, is this 
>>> really necessary ? Couldn't it work if there was just one wizard, 
>>> which would decide which root to take, based on whether the home 
>>> directory entered by the user already contains sources or not ?
>>> The way it is now, the user needs to make the choice, when in fact 
>>> the machine could make the choice for her. Another advantage would be 
>>> that this would decrease the amount of clutter in the project 
>>> selector UI.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Petr
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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]
>