Moving to intellij i'm trying to understand properly the logic behind the its project structure. I come from eclipse. After reading for a while i understood the relation between workspace and project, then between project and modules. However something that is puzzling me is the logic of the default project configuration in Intellij. Indeed, when you create a project there is an initial module which to a certain extend is equivalent to the Project itself. To be more precise, the initial module folder is the Project folder. This is kind of confusing to me. Then when you add more module they are sub-module of that module.
My first question is what is the rationale of making this first module equivalent to the project folder ?
Following this, i would further ask, what the point of having modules as sub-module of others.
In eclipse i use to have simply different project (i.e. module) independent from each other and adding the dependency as necessary. So how does the Idea solution makes it better, if not what is the rational here ?
I saw that one can start an empty project and then add modules to it. However in that case, the modules added are added as subfolder of the Project and therefore there is no initial module equivalent to the Project folder ? So why this difference and what is the rationale behind it ?
What would be the better approach, the first or second ?
Would it be ok to have this first initial module with no src or test folder but just with the proper facet so as to spread it to the sub-module?
I would appreciate if someone could explain a bit the rational of all of it ?
I will move to SBT soon (i.e. maven structure which I suppose inspired all modern IDE project Structure) if one want to explain within that context fine, nevertheless i want to understand the rationale in intelliJ first.
Many thanks,
-M-
PS: What i'm looking for is some advise for some multi-module project structure in Intellij as i'm moving my eclipse workspaces to it.
I think that it's not uncommon for projects to be relatively small, so they don't need fancy modules with dependency management etc. In that case, I find the default project created by IntelliJ to fit perfectly my needs: no need to add submodules, everything is directly in the parent project, it reduces the structure to its bare minimum.
On the other hand, big projects with submodules will likely resemble the structure of a Maven multimodule project (perhaps SBT too, but I don't know this tool at all). You have a parent root which acts as a container for submodules. The parent project may also store configuration (a default SDK, a language level etc. that will be inherited by the submodules). The actual code will be contained in the submodules.
Regarding your questions, it all depends on the kind of project you are developing. For a small codebase, you could keep a simple project with no submodule. For bigger codebases, you can either create modules manually, or import an existing Maven/SBT/whatever project, which will automatically create modules reflecting the imported structure.
Related
I would like to add into project some files that shouldn't be compiled. I mean mainly text files with for example notes, concepts, comments etc.
I realized that it is possible only at module level. But it is not very convenient. I'd rather prefer to keep them on project level. Is it possible in any way?
And if not:
I have another idea: to create special module, name it for example "other_stuff", do not create src directory and put files there. Is it ok? I'm afraid of potential compilation problems when one of modules is artificial, with no sources but still has sdk assigned (it is probably impossible to leave module without sdk assigned).
While generating artifacts you can add any file into your artifact. Also, in modules you can have folders not declared as source, and they will not be compiled.
I have a BIG project in IDEA (basically the trunk of my company source code), but I need to work only on one of the "modules" (not sure how to call those). Is there a way I could export/create from/in IDEA a smaller project with the part of trunk I'm interested in? It's pretty self-contained, there should be dependencies only on 1 or 2 other projects in trunk.
There is no automatic option to extract a part of a project. You should create a new project from the existing sources, it will contain only required modules with content roots set to the parts of the bigger project and dependencies configured between them.
An iPad project I have been working on has become bloated with a huge number of files. The application is a prototype and we are considering ways to prevent this when we rewrite it.
One of the members of our team suggests dividing all of the components into separate Xcode projects which will be included in a master Xcode project.
Is this a good idea? What are the reasons, if any, to avoid dividing features/components/controls into separate Xcode projects?
You can add a subsidiary project file to a master project file in Xcode. Just choose "Add File" and add it. When Xcode builds the master it will build the subsidiary as well if needed.
I use a similar system. I often break a project into sub projects just so I can focus on and enforce encapsulation. I write the data model first, then add the app delegate, then specific UI elements. I add each project to the next in turn. This also allows me to go back and change things without as much risk of breaking.
Really, a properly designed objective-c app should be easy to decompose into multiple project. Ideally, all the components are so encapsulate that they don't need any others save the data model.
We have put some of the code in its own project, building a framework which we link against at some of the other projects. It's sometimes annoying that you won't see the implementation files of the framework code right away in another project (by cmd+clicking or cmd+shift+D, or whatever you do normally to navigate). Xcode will only show you the header, you'll have to open the other project and find your file there manually. Not a big deal, but if you look up the code often, it will bother you.
A real problem is that you change the scope of some operations. Stuff like "Find in project" will work on a different file set, which might not be what you want sometimes (trying to find where this method is called / key is used in your whole code, or something); well, there remains Finder / find, so it might be okay. Refactoring is not - all the renaming stuff just breaks, as it will change only the code of the current project, but not of projects referencing this one. If you change interfaces often, better avoid splitting up the project.
A good thing is that you will get less conflicts on your .xcodeproj files (if stored in a shared repository) as someone removing a file from project X won't create a conflict with someone else adding a target on project Y, which where previously the same .xcodeproj (not exactly sure this is a conflict case, but there definitely are some).
Now with Xcode4 you can create a workspace and add all your projects there. Only for documentation purpose :)
To view and modify subproject implementation files, you should add the sub projects directly into the main project.
1 step - Drag and drop the .xcode project files to main project.
2 step - Go to main project TARGETS - > Build Phases. Add subproject target in Target Dependencies. You can also add binary files in Link Binary With Libraries.
3 step - Add subproject source path to main projects header search path.
Go to main project - > Build Settings - > Header Search Paths (e.g $(SRCROOT)/../CoconutKit-master/CoconutKit/Sources )
An Xcode project can have any number of build targets within it, and you can arbitrarily group source files into folders. What makes you think that multiple projects are necessary?
I have a large Flash Builder project that is part of a much larger (.net) solution. I typically have, for the entire project, a forward dev branch going, as well one or more bug fix branches. What is the best way to set this up in Flash Builder, given that Flash Builder does NOT want to import an new project (bug fix branch) that has the same name as an existing (forward dev branch) project?
The best way is understand the workspace limitations. Eclipse doesn't accept projects with the same name, is an old problem. I could say you, isn't only eclipse, but a lot IDEs have such problem and bugs about it.
We want a create a project, production, what is the current stable version, at least one bug test and the next project version. Then, in this Eclipse case, you should name it to something like ProjectNameProd, ProjectNameBugFix and ProjectNameNextVersion. It's also good for browser files by path, as you have the folder saying what is inside.
You can put all in one SVN or GIT repo, or create one repository for each one of these contents. Then, configure the Eclipse/Flash Builder to use SVN, follow this well explained.
Another, not well, approach is set one project and all your targets but it is really a mess to organize and keep things separated.
Hope help you.
As my Maven project grows, I'm trying to stay on top of the project structure. So far, I have a nested directory layout with 2-3 levels, where there's a POM on each level with module entries corresponding to the directories at that level. POM inheritance (parent property) does not necessarily follow this, and is not relevant for the purpose of this question.
Now, while the nested structure seems pretty natural to Maven, and it's nice and clean as long as you are on one particular level, I'm starting to get confused by what I look at in my IDE (Eclipse and IntelliJ IDEA).
I had a look at the Apache Felix sources, and they have a pretty complex project in what seems to be a flat directory structure, so I'm wondering if this would be a better way to go.
What are some pros and cons for either approach that you have experienced in practice?
Note that this question (which I found meanwhile) seems to be very similar. I'll leave it to the community to decide whether this should be closed as a duplicate.
I use a kind of mixed approach. Things with distinct lifecycle (from a release and thus VCS point of view) are flat, things with the same lifecycle are nested. And I use svn:externals for the checkout. I wrote about this approach in this previous answer.
I vote for nesting. I'm using IDEA 9 which shows the nesting in the project pane, so the presentation mirrors your logical project structure. (This wasn't the case in 8.1 - it was flattened out.)
I prefer keeping things nested, especially if the names are very similar - makes navigation much easier when using a command prompt. I have a project with names like myapp-layer-component, so they all start with the same prefix, and many have the same -layer-, so using autocomplete on the commandline is next to useless. Separating these out into a nested structure is then much easier because each part of the name (appname, layer or component) is repeated just once at each level in the directory structure.
If building from the command line, it's much easier to build a subset of the project, e.g. if I'm working on the db model, then often I need to build all projects in that area. This is tricky to do when the files are flattened out - the only way I know is to use the -pl argument to maven and specify the proejcts to build. With the nested directories, I just cd to the db directory and run mvn.
For example, instead of
myapp-web-gui1
myapp-web-gui2
myapp-web-base
myapp-svc-clustered
myapp-svc-clustered-integrationtest
myapp-svc-simple
myapp-db-model
myapp-db-hibernate
We have the structure
\myapp
\web
\gui1
pom.xml
\gui2
pom.xml (other poms omitted to keep it short)
\base
\svc
\clustered
\clustered-it
\simple
\db
\model
\hibernate
You could also add nesting for the integration tests, but this seems like driving the point too far.
With nesting, you also get all the benefits of inheritance (and some of it's pains...)
The only issue I've had with this is that the directory name doesn't match the artifact id. (I'm still using full artifactIds.) And so each project must explicitly define SCM paths, since these can no longer be inferred from the parent pom. Of course, each directory can be made the same as the artifactId, and then the SCM details can be inferred from the parent, but I found the long directory names a bit unwieldy.