Skip to main content
Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "Java9/ModularityOptions/UIProposal SH"

(Functionality Discussion)
Line 53: Line 53:
 
* ''withdrawn'': <strike>The Details compartment is a table, 2nd column being initially filled from tiny dialogs behind the buttons '''Expose Package''' / '''Read Module...'''.</strike>
 
* ''withdrawn'': <strike>The Details compartment is a table, 2nd column being initially filled from tiny dialogs behind the buttons '''Expose Package''' / '''Read Module...'''.</strike>
 
* [[Image:Ok_green.gif]] Qualifications of exports / opens are listed as child nodes (modules), has-child indicator should suffice to signal the qualification
 
* [[Image:Ok_green.gif]] Qualifications of exports / opens are listed as child nodes (modules), has-child indicator should suffice to signal the qualification
* ?? For patching, I would intuitively expect only one pattern: add a source folder of the current project into a given module on the module path.
+
* [[Image:Glass.gif]]  For patching, I would intuitively expect only one pattern: add a source folder of the current project into a given module on the module path.
 
** For maximum flexibility we could also support to patch a module with another project, or just a source folder of that project.
 
** For maximum flexibility we could also support to patch a module with another project, or just a source folder of that project.
 
** Till suggested to only support project (meaning: all its source folders)
 
** Till suggested to only support project (meaning: all its source folders)
Line 61: Line 61:
 
* Many aspects of the above should consider the distinction main/test sources, how exactly is a tricky question.
 
* Many aspects of the above should consider the distinction main/test sources, how exactly is a tricky question.
 
** [[Image:Ok_green.gif]] Each modification dialog will have a checkbox "[x] Test only".
 
** [[Image:Ok_green.gif]] Each modification dialog will have a checkbox "[x] Test only".
** [[Image:Progress.gif]] Alternatively, the entire page could have two filtered views, selectable by a drop down [main/test] - ''deferred / may not be needed due to individual checkboxes in dialogs''
+
** [[Image:Glass.gif]] Alternatively, the entire page could have two filtered views, selectable by a drop down [main/test] - ''deferred / may not be needed due to individual checkboxes in dialogs''
 
*** Changes made in view "main" are global
 
*** Changes made in view "main" are global
 
*** Changes made in view "test" are not visible in view "main"
 
*** Changes made in view "test" are not visible in view "main"
Line 68: Line 68:
 
==Functionality Discussion==
 
==Functionality Discussion==
 
I do hope that this one page can eventually fully replace the existing Module dialog (hidden behind "Is modular"), and also cover the additional use cases discussed above.
 
I do hope that this one page can eventually fully replace the existing Module dialog (hidden behind "Is modular"), and also cover the additional use cases discussed above.
* We seem to loose the visualization of explicitly and implicitly included modules, so, we'd have to make up our minds what happens if the user tries to remove a module that is implicitly included because another included module depends on it (refuse to remove? remove with full path of incoming dependencies? ...)
+
* [[Image:Glass.gif]] We seem to loose the visualization of explicitly and implicitly included modules, so, we'd have to make up our minds what happens if the user tries to remove a module that is implicitly included because another included module depends on it (refuse to remove? remove with full path of incoming dependencies? ...)
* <code>--add-reads</code> is now universally applicable, we just need to add support for the "module" '''ALL-UNNAMED'''.
+
* [[Image:Ok_green.gif]] <code>--add-reads</code> is now universally applicable, we just need to add support for the "module" '''ALL-UNNAMED'''.
 
* Test code could read '''ALL-UNNAMED''' ''by default'', with the option to remove this.
 
* Test code could read '''ALL-UNNAMED''' ''by default'', with the option to remove this.
* To reflect "--add-modules ALL-SYSTEM" the "Add System Module" dialog could have a checkbox "[x] All System Modules".
+
* [[Image:Ok_green.gif]] To reflect "--add-modules ALL-SYSTEM" the "Add System Module" dialog will have a checkbox "[x] All System Modules".
* Still missing: a location to specify the '''Main Class''' :(
+
* [[Image:Glass.gif]] Still missing: a location to specify the '''Main Class''' :(
  
 
==Future==
 
==Future==
 
For test specific tweaks (which are in general not ''migration'' tools, but part of the architecture) I would still wish we had s.t. that looks like source code, easily compared in git etc. Is the proposed design blocking such future development?
 
For test specific tweaks (which are in general not ''migration'' tools, but part of the architecture) I would still wish we had s.t. that looks like source code, easily compared in git etc. Is the proposed design blocking such future development?
 
* One might think of making the "test" view read-only in the dialog, and redirect to a special module-info.java for editing (comparable to [https://github.com/apache/maven-plugins/pull/139/commits/d7d79817ae6f85a802cf73793403e5a1c131fa42 compiler-jpms-test/src/test/java/module-info.java])
 
* One might think of making the "test" view read-only in the dialog, and redirect to a special module-info.java for editing (comparable to [https://github.com/apache/maven-plugins/pull/139/commits/d7d79817ae6f85a802cf73793403e5a1c131fa42 compiler-jpms-test/src/test/java/module-info.java])

Revision as of 17:42, 28 October 2018

I've been painting a bit and here is my first sketch to support all module-graph related options in one tab of the Java Build Path properties page:

ModuleGraph page.png

All modules

This compartment lists all modules that are contained in the module graph. The module defined by the current project is pinned to the top of the list. Other modules are sorted alphabetically.

It shows the following additional information:

  • icon decorations:
    • S = System Library
    • U = Upgrade of a System Library
    • A = Automodule
    • > = Tweaked (see "Details") if we follow conventions of SCM decorations, then this is a prefix of the label
  • the origin - not enough space here, perhaps under Details
  • ...

Possible actions:

  • (Actions are en/disabled depending on selection)
  • Add a module (from those contained in JRE but not included by default, or previously removed)
  • Remove a module (applies only to JRE modules, other modules should be removed on the Libraries or Projects tab)
    • Is that restriction confusing? Alternative: when removing a module explicitly listed on the Modulepath, warn before removing.
  • Select any module for additional tweaking, see next.

Details

For the selected module we can

  • Inspect the declared details (from module-info: exports/opens/requires). Collapsed in the mockup.
  • Add any of the following tweaks:
    • Let the module expose an existing package (export and/or open), possibly restricted to certain modules.
    • Let the module read another module
    • Add more sources to patch the module, one of:
      • A source folder
      • A project
      • A jar (does it make sense to let one 3rd party thing patch another 3rd party thing?)
  • Icon decorations:
    • E = Exports
    • O = Opens
    • R = Reads
    • P = Patched by

UX Discussion

  • Ok green.gif We still need second level dialogs for details for each of the actions (except remove :) ), but we no longer need the three levels of dialogs that we currently use.
  • Progress.gif I've been thinking about making "All modules" a full dependency tree => option is nice-to-have, deferred.
    • Confer: M2e has both: a tree starting from a fixed set of roots plus a flat list of transitive dependencies
    • Roots are currently implicit in JDT
    • Could possibly be made a view option later
  • Progress.gif Filtering could be added later:
    • only modified modules
    • only main modules (i.e., no test-only dependencies)
  • Ok green.gif The two compartments are essentially master-detail
    • Progress.gif After adding a reads module under Details, it is likely that details for that module need to be added next. So perhaps some navigation from right to left is useful, too ("Select in All Modules") deferred
  • withdrawn: I played with arrow up/down icons to signify the two directions: exposing packages to other modules, and reading from other another module. Import/Export wizards, e.g., use diagonal arrows, is that better?
  • withdrawn: The Details compartment is a table, 2nd column being initially filled from tiny dialogs behind the buttons Expose Package / Read Module....
  • Ok green.gif Qualifications of exports / opens are listed as child nodes (modules), has-child indicator should suffice to signal the qualification
  • Glass.gif For patching, I would intuitively expect only one pattern: add a source folder of the current project into a given module on the module path.
    • For maximum flexibility we could also support to patch a module with another project, or just a source folder of that project.
    • Till suggested to only support project (meaning: all its source folders)
  • Ok green.gif when patching a module, that patched module should move to the top of the LHS list (it is now the current module)

Tests

  • Many aspects of the above should consider the distinction main/test sources, how exactly is a tricky question.
    • Ok green.gif Each modification dialog will have a checkbox "[x] Test only".
    • Glass.gif Alternatively, the entire page could have two filtered views, selectable by a drop down [main/test] - deferred / may not be needed due to individual checkboxes in dialogs
      • Changes made in view "main" are global
      • Changes made in view "test" are not visible in view "main"
    • Ok green.gif Use dark gray icons like in Package Explorer

Functionality Discussion

I do hope that this one page can eventually fully replace the existing Module dialog (hidden behind "Is modular"), and also cover the additional use cases discussed above.

  • Glass.gif We seem to loose the visualization of explicitly and implicitly included modules, so, we'd have to make up our minds what happens if the user tries to remove a module that is implicitly included because another included module depends on it (refuse to remove? remove with full path of incoming dependencies? ...)
  • Ok green.gif --add-reads is now universally applicable, we just need to add support for the "module" ALL-UNNAMED.
  • Test code could read ALL-UNNAMED by default, with the option to remove this.
  • Ok green.gif To reflect "--add-modules ALL-SYSTEM" the "Add System Module" dialog will have a checkbox "[x] All System Modules".
  • Glass.gif Still missing: a location to specify the Main Class :(

Future

For test specific tweaks (which are in general not migration tools, but part of the architecture) I would still wish we had s.t. that looks like source code, easily compared in git etc. Is the proposed design blocking such future development?

Back to the top