That wouldn't really work because our CVS structure includes a "library project" where all our internal libraries are, and the projects reference this path relatively.
This means that if I check project A_MAIN out to say /home/stefan/work then I'll also get the libraries from CVS. Now, if I check project A_SOME-BRANCH out to /home/stefan/branch-fix then I'll also get the libraries into that directory and the project should be referencing the libraries relatively (the main project would reference it in the /home/stefan/work directory but the branch project would reference /home/stefan/branch-fix). I do see your point and yes, this is a theoretical solution to the problem... unfortunately it is far from being practical... at least in our case. Thanks for the reply :o) p.s. Is there anyone from the intelliJ team on these newsgroups? Or do I need to send this feature request somewhere else for it to be seriously considered? "schmoe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message aghdhs$q0i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:aghdhs$q0i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Why not just include the version# of the library in your library definition? > Right now, I have different versions of several libraries as library > definitions ("JGL 3.1.0" vs "JGL 4.0", for example), and different projects > depend on different libraries. > > Is this a viable solution/workaround, or am I missing the point? > > mike > > "Stefan Freyr Stefansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > aghctf$p15$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:aghctf$p15$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Hello. > > > > Before I begin, I'd like to say kudos to the IDEA team for a (mostly) > great > > product. > > > > I'm working for a rather large company that has a relatively large > software > > department. > > > > Until now we've been using JBuilder as our primary software development > tool > > and been pretty satisfied with it (except that it is way too expensive and > > we're not really using many of the features that actually make it so > > expensive such as EJB development). > > > > A few of us here have been evaluating IntelliJ IDEA and we are very > pleased > > with it except for mainly one thing (I'll elaborate on that a little > later). > > We started out evaluating v2.5 but soon switched to Ariadna, mostly > because > > 2.5 used absolute paths for many things that made group development > > virtually impossible. We're running development machines on at least two > > platforms (windows and linux) and we desperately needed the projects to > use > > relative paths for all definitions. > > > > After we switched to Ariadna, things have gone much better. However, I > > recently discovered a very serious bug that is giving us a hard time to > make > > the transition from JBuilder to IDEA companywide. The thing is that all > > library definitions seem to be done on an "dev machine level". That is, > if > > I create a library definition it seems to be stored in an XML document > > called "library.table.xml" that is located under the > > <IDEA_HOME>/config/options directory. This means that I can not have two > > versions of the project on my computer at the same time referencing > > different versions of this library. This poses a serious usability issue > > here for us where we are for example developing projects that have been > > branched in CVS in order to maintain a "stable" branch for a release > > version. The branched project does not use the same jar file version as > the > > project on the MAIN branch and therefore we have a big problem. This > method > > of storing library definitions doesn't really make much sense in this > case. > > > > Now I know that you must hate hearing that JBuilder does something better > > than you but the fact is that in this case it does :o(. Overall, you guys > > have a much better product except for this single, yet serious flaw. I > > think that the way this is solved in JBuilder (being able to define a > > library definition on three levels: Dev machine level, Project level and > > User level) is a very good solution. Please tell me that this is on the > > agenda... hopefully for the 3.0 release? > > > > Kind regards, and just to prevent all misunderstanding... I'm not starting > > any flame war... I'm just expressing my concern because I would like > nothing > > more than to drop JBuilder and pick up IDEA but the fact is that we can't > > possibly do that now because of this one thing :o( > > > > Stefan Freyr Stefansson > > Software Developer, deCODE Genetics. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Eap-features mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.jetbrains.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-features
