Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Moving code in Netbeans Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 21:12:02 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 42 Message-ID: References: <94dc4bfa-818d-43fc-b651-e8f3d5c0a293@googlegroups.com> <5755F82F.7090709@fastmail.fm> NNTP-Posting-Host: 7SK6yTFfqwlIPNBLl3l7Qg.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:34557 On 6/7/2016 8:31 PM, Eric Sosman wrote: > On 6/7/2016 8:19 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> On 6/7/2016 7:44 AM, Eric Sosman wrote: >>> [...] >>> But >>> it doesn't seem to me that anyone should care about the auto-generated >>> code's appearance; it seems akin to worrying about the appearance of the >>> JVM bytecode generated by the compiler. Although auto-generated code is >>> Java, it is not "source:" the source is the stuff the GUI design tool >>> takes in, and the auto-generated Java is "object code." Nobody is >>> expected to read it (except in extremis while chasing weird bugs), and >>> certainly nobody is expected to modify it. >> >> Hm. I believe that some GUI's actual used the code as source for >> GUI builder. >> >> It is almost a requirement for a bi-directional GUI builder where >> one can eithe ruse tool or manual edit the code, where the latter >> does not break the GUI builder (assuming you play nice). >> >> But NB used to be uni-directional and if it still is, then that >> logic does not apply. > > I'm not aware of such bi-directional setups -- but there are lots > and lots of things I'm not aware of! JBuilder was rather good at it 10-14 years ago. > One stumbling block that occurs > to me is that deciding what the "source" is could become difficult: > For build X the source is Foo.form, for build X+1 it's Foo.java, and > for build X+2 it's Foo.form again. Can you see a source control > system going bonkers over this? > > (For build X+3 it turns out that *both* Foo.java and Foo.form > have been edited, incompatibly, since X+2 ...) I agree that it is either source=form or source=code, no mix (until IDE change). Arne