howdy RadRails team,
I just finished listening to the current Podcast (for 0.5.*) and heard
the war stories about
adding support for the Outline.
This reminded me that you had used the RDT Editors in your initial
releases (unless I'm confusing
something), but dropped them for your own implementations.
I see the reasons for the editor bit (adding your own AutoCompletions,
Templates, Color settings, etc).
I suppose the RDT Editor isn't currently flexible enough to support
these, not to mention embedding Ruby
editing functionality in .rhtml files.
But... I was wondering if you're going to continue working on
functionality that is already available in RDT.
Especially when you're starting on debugging or testing support, it'd be
sad to see you guys spend a lot
of time and nerves on getting a GUI and model for the Ruby Debugger.
Not to mention starting work on refactoring, QuickAssists, further
Documentation (which'll require
class analysis, ... to gather proper results), better context-sensitive
AutoComplete, ...
Now... I was wondering if there'd be some way to get you guys (The 3
Radrails Musketeers) and the RDT
team to get together, or at least some ways that you could benefit from
the work (existing and future) on RDT.
My motivation: I'm trying to add some features (better documentation
like doc hovers etc, code browsing,
QuickAssists,...). I was looking at RadRails and RDT... but there's no
commonality in the two systems, and it's
a bit tedious to do these things twice, not to mention that any more
sophisticated tools (that need analysis
which, in turn, requires a proper project model, etc).
I see that RadRails has started to implement stuff like that (source
model, project model,..) the recent 0.5
sources, and I'm wondering if there could be something done to prevent
RadRails and RDT to
go completely seperate ways.
Now ... my questions:
- what do you (RadRails) think is too complicated and big about RDT
and it's components (from the Podcast,
it seems that you guys seem to have that opinion, correct me if I'm wrong).
- could you/would you reconsider your work if someone helped you port
the code to use RDT?
(I'm only reading up on RDT, but maybe I could help with that).
- Would you consider using the RDT editor if it is flexible enough for
you uses?
- Would you include RDT if someone (me?) provides a documentation
system that tries to integrate several
documentation sources (RI, web Rails docs, ...) that requires RDT?
Again: I'm impressed by the speed at which you've been adding features,
and I definitely don't want to
slow you down (because of a slower release cycle in RDT, etc). But maybe
there can be some midterm plans
to get RDT and RadRails closer.
Disclaimer: I'm *not* speaking on behalf of the RDT team or anyone else;
this is done on my own account,
so if you don't agree with me or my ideas, call *me* a meddling
bastard, and not the RDT guys.
murphee
--
Blog @ http://jroller.com/page/murphee
_______________________________________________
RadRails mailing list
RadRails@radrails.org
http://lists.radrails.org/mailman/listinfo/radrails
