Still forgetting "Reply to all"...
From: Nathan Voxland=20
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 10:32 AM
To: 'Robert Manning'
Subject: RE: [Squirrel-sql-develop] Refactoring Plugin
I think it would be best to keep the SQuirreL-specific code in the
SQuirreL repository. Anything that would be in there should be fairly
SQuirreL-specific and it would work best with your build and install
scripts. When it comes time to create the real NetBeans and Eclipse
plug-ins, I may keep them in separate repositories anyway. =20
I have a question on what you prefer for laying out the UI. I use
IntelliJ, so their built-in visual editor is the easiest for me, but
would not be as easy for non-intelliJ users to work with. Would you
rather have me use jform or NetBean's Matisse, or is the IntelliJ one
From: Robert Manning [mailto:robert.m.manning@...
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 11:52 AM
To: Nathan Voxland
Subject: Re: [Squirrel-sql-develop] Refactoring Plugin
On 5/6/07, Nathan Voxland <Nathan.Voxland@...> wrote:
> I think you are thinking along the same lines as I was if LiquiBase
> code was included with SQuirreL. I designed LiquiBase to have a core
> migrator jar that has no dependencies and contains just the
> engine. As I build IDE plugins, I was going to keep the code from
> distributed independently of the core. I'm not sure how much (if any)
> can be shared between plug-ins that isn't part of the LiquiBase core.
> started plug-ins for Eclipse and NetBeans, and they abstract their UI
> components and actions enough that there may not be a lot of
> we'll have to just see. Neither have a well-developed, extendable
> interface so I am planning on focusing SQuirreL first, then see what I
> abstract out. If there is common plug-in classes, I'll keep those in
> repository along with the LiquiBase core.
That sounds very reasonable.
> What you were suggesting is for me to keep the SQuirreL LiquiBase
> code in my repository as well, and commit the compiled plug-in jars to
> SQuirreL as new versions are completed. Is that right, or were you
> suggesting I keep the SQuirreL-specific code in the SQuirreL
> think either option would be fine. Keeping the SQuirreL code in the
> SQuirreL repository may make it easier for other SQuirreL developers
> bugs and hopefully make improvements, but keeping it the SQuirreL code
> the same repository as the base plug-in code may be easier in the long
> I'm just looking for what would best allow us to help improve each
I was thinking you might include the compiled jar(s) that represent
the core refactoring functionality as a library that the SQuirreL
plugin code would use. From my perspective, the SQuirreL plugin code
would naturally be best kept in the SQuirreL repository. It would
allow us to build our installer and archives including it, so users
wouldn't need to go find it and download it separately. But the
choice is yours, obviously, you will be maintaining it primarily, so
if it's more convenient to keep it all in one place, that is fine. I
imagine you'll already have the NetBeans and Eclipse plugins' source
code in the same repository, so I could see the reasoning behind
keeping the SQuirreL plugin code there as well. The only thing I
would advise you not to do, is to (attempt to) keep the same source
code in two different repositories. I've done this before and
realized that time is precious, and I didn't need to spend it keeping
repositories in sync.