Re: [Pydev-code] Some ideas about PyDev

[Fabio Z. <fa...@gm...>]

Hi Radim,

Getting back to answer some e-mails (as the 1.3.19 is finally out)...

- speed and support for included/excluded resources: currently the
> initial scan of platform and project takes too long + it tries to scan
> recursively everything under the path root directories. This is very
> unfortunate if your project is using SCM shared by more projects and
> you really do not want to analyze unrelated sources.


I think that the initial scan should be much faster now (with the
improvements on pydev extensions)... also, I think it's a bit strange on
having the source that way if they should be unrelated (can you give some
examples on the organization and why it's like that -- so that I can
understand better what's really needed for solving what you want).

- coverage: currently there are several launch types (run, (unit)test,
> coverage) and two modes (exec/debug) while more natural to me is two
> launch types (run / test) and three modes (exec/debug/coverage). Note
> that this is similar to an approach taken by popular plugin for Java
> coverage EclEmma (http://eclemma.org/). Also the UI provided by
> current coverage supprt can by improved a lot - I'd like to see the
> result as some kind of annotation in editor


Improvements in the coverage are surely welcome!.

- follow more Eclipse API/SPIs. Now I have some troubles as PyDev
> converts eclipse Path to java.io.File almost instantly. This makes it
> hard to use Eclipse links to link only to a specific directories (I do
> that to work around a problem mentioned above).


Yes, that's a major refactoring to be done... (that's why currently the
links are only actually followed for the source directories)

I can submit patches for some of these as well as do some bugfixes if
> there is an agreement that these are good ideas. Comments, feedback?


For the java.io.File fix, I'm not very sure (I'd probably like to do it
myself, as it's probably going to work on lots of places in the code -- and
unit-tests), as for the others, I'm all for it.

I'd also like to know what is current estimation for Ganymede (Eclipse
> 3.4) support?
>

It's actually mostly supported, but official support is waiting for
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2002870&group_id=85796&atid=577329to
be fixed (a patch for that one would be pretty nice).

Cheers,

Fabio