Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #34501 > unrolled thread

Moving code in Netbeans

Started byDave <dboland9@fastmail.fm>
First post2016-06-06 16:03 -0400
Last post2016-06-07 23:29 +0200
Articles 6 on this page of 26 — 9 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  Moving code in Netbeans Dave <dboland9@fastmail.fm> - 2016-06-06 16:03 -0400
    Moving code in Netbeans Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 13:47 -0700
      Re: Moving code in Netbeans Dave <dboland9@fastmail.fm> - 2016-06-06 18:24 -0400
        Re: Moving code in Netbeans Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 16:52 -0700
          Re: Moving code in Netbeans Dave <dboland9@fastmail.fm> - 2016-06-06 23:04 -0400
            Re: Moving code in Netbeans Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-06 23:30 -0400
              Re: Moving code in Netbeans Dave <dboland9@fastmail.fm> - 2016-06-07 00:16 -0400
                Re: Moving code in Netbeans Andreas Leitgeb <avl@logic.at> - 2016-06-07 06:53 +0000
                Re: Moving code in Netbeans Nigel Wade <nmw@ion.le.ac.uk> - 2016-06-07 09:26 +0100
                Re: Moving code in Netbeans Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-07 07:44 -0400
                  Re: Moving code in Netbeans Dave <dboland9@fastmail.fm> - 2016-06-07 07:53 -0400
                    Re: Moving code in Netbeans Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-07 08:24 -0400
                    Re: Moving code in Netbeans Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-06-07 13:22 +0000
                    Re: Moving code in Netbeans Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 06:23 -0700
                      Re: Moving code in Netbeans Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-07 10:10 -0400
                        Re: Moving code in Netbeans Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 07:36 -0700
                      Re: Moving code in Netbeans Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-06-07 20:23 -0400
                    Re: Moving code in Netbeans Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 13:43 -0700
                    Re: Moving code in Netbeans Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-06-07 20:30 -0400
                  Re: Moving code in Netbeans Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-06-07 20:19 -0400
                    Re: Moving code in Netbeans Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-06-07 20:31 -0400
                      Re: Moving code in Netbeans Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-06-07 21:12 -0400
                      Re: Moving code in Netbeans Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-06-08 06:41 -0700
                        Re: Moving code in Netbeans Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-06-08 17:08 -0400
                Re: Moving code in Netbeans Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 13:39 -0700
                  Re: Moving code in Netbeans Robin Koch <robin.koch@t-online.de> - 2016-06-07 23:29 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#34556

FromEric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid>
Date2016-06-07 20:31 -0400
Message-ID<nj7p0h$27m$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#34552
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!  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 ...)

     Long ago I had an experience of this general flavor.  A user (a
full professor, no less) came to me for help with his FORTRAN code,
and I hit a wall: I could not for the life of me figure out how his
code produced the output.  It turned out he'd run the compiler in a
mode that printed the generated assembly code, then hand-edited the
assembly for "efficiency" -- and then brought me the original FORTRAN
when his hand-edited assembly no longer worked ...  Being able to say
with certainty that *THIS* is The Source is vital to debugging, and
I'd get the heebie-jeebies if that ability were threatened.

-- 
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
"Don't be afraid of work. Make work afraid of you." -- TLM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34557

FromArne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk>
Date2016-06-07 21:12 -0400
Message-ID<nj7rd0$pc0$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#34556
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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34565

FromEric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com>
Date2016-06-08 06:41 -0700
Message-ID<2888657d-7622-4914-973a-d7b41a669a0a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#34556
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:31:22 PM UTC-4, Eric Sosman wrote:
>      I'm not aware of such bi-directional setups -- but there are lots
> and lots of things I'm not aware of!  One stumbling block that occurs

We developed an in house IDE that uses 3 files for every GUI screen, a .gui, a .srx, and a .srg.  The .gui is just xml to layout the controls on the screen.  The .srx contains the custom developer code, and the .srg merges the custom code with standard code to generate the GUI controls in it's compile process.  If you know the syntax it's using you can edit the .gui file then load it into the IDE and magic! a control can appear or disappear...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34577

FromArne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk>
Date2016-06-08 17:08 -0400
Message-ID<nja1fh$gq1$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#34565
On 6/8/2016 9:41 AM, Eric Douglas wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:31:22 PM UTC-4, Eric Sosman wrote:
>> I'm not aware of such bi-directional setups -- but there are lots
>> and lots of things I'm not aware of!  One stumbling block that
>> occurs
>
> We developed an in house IDE that uses 3 files for every GUI screen,
> a .gui, a .srx, and a .srg.  The .gui is just xml to layout the
> controls on the screen.  The .srx contains the custom developer code,
> and the .srg merges the custom code with standard code to generate
> the GUI controls in it's compile process.  If you know the syntax
> it's using you can edit the .gui file then load it into the IDE and
> magic! a control can appear or disappear...

Sounds like you would want to switch to JavaFX.

:-)

It provides the same separation.

It does it in a slightly different way, but ...

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34544

FromLew <lewbloch@gmail.com>
Date2016-06-07 13:39 -0700
Message-ID<83729ee1-08bf-4557-a2b0-eb4271d33bea@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#34515
On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 9:16:11 PM UTC-7, Dave wrote:
> Actually, I was very clear.  

Actually, you were very unclear. You critically left out whether you were dealing with auto-generated code until asked a couple of times, for example. That is the opposite of clear.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34549

FromRobin Koch <robin.koch@t-online.de>
Date2016-06-07 23:29 +0200
Message-ID<nj7ebt$8e8$1@news.albasani.net>
In reply to#34544
Am 07.06.2016 um 22:39 schrieb Lew:
> On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 9:16:11 PM UTC-7, Dave wrote:
>> Actually, I was very clear.
>
> Actually, you were very unclear. You critically left out whether you
> were dealing with auto-generated code until asked a couple of times,
> for example. That is the opposite of clear.

This reminds me of the Alt-Text of this:

https://xkcd.com/1028/

-- 
Robin Koch

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web