Re: Merb Support (Deux)
Yehuda Katz wrote:
> You said:
>
> (I'm crossposting to users@...
> <mailto:users@...> and dev@...
> <mailto:dev@...>, please reply to dev <at> ruby only)
>
>
> Hi folks,
>
>
> Matt Aimonetti from the Merb core team expressed interest in
> helping to integrate Merb in NetBeans, so hopefully by working
> together we can provide support already in the next release. I'm
> copying here part of Matt's email about the things that the
> support should cover:
>
>
> "Running the specs from within the IDE (the most requested feature
> atm)
>
> - run the dev application in a bundled state if needed. (ALL
> required gems are packaged in a local gems folder and you start
> merb by using the binaries in the local bin folder) TM doesn't
> support that and it's a key feature.
>
>
> Basically general support for bundled merb apps (which run entirely
> encapsulated without any use of system gems) would be a big win. Like
> I said, Textmate's rspec support hardcodes in use of the system, which
> makes it not work well (at all?) with Merb.
How exactly do you run a bundled Merb app, i.e. what are the steps that
the IDE should do? (Excuse me for my ignorance, I'm pretty new to the
Merb world)
>
>
> - browse documentation/code hinting specific to Merb. (we'd have
> to help you there)
>
>
> See my previous post.
>
>
> - access/reproduce some of the thor/rake methods like
> bundling/generate resources..
>
>
> Yeah this would be fantastic. Because thor is just a class, regular
> class introspection could help here, or we could write some better
> introspection capabilities into thor so you wouldn't have to grab the
> information out of thor -T.
Would something like the current Rake runner
(http://wiki.netbeans.org/RubyRake) do, or did you have something else
in your mind?
>
>
> - access to merb console (merb -i)
>
>
> Absolutely. Again, keep in mind that this needs to work bundled
> (bin/merb -i) and ideally would support different modes (development,
> etc.). Additionally, the main merb server supports a mode where
> sending an INT (C-c) to the server drops into console mode. It would
> be cool to be able to support that.
This might work already with the upcoming terminal emulator, but will
need to double-check that.
>
>
> - support for different app layouts (I don't think NB should
> overwrite whatever the user generated like it's the case with a
> Rails app at the moment)
>
>
> Yeah. An important thing about Merb is support for just about any app
> layout. It's possible to ask Merb for details via Merb.dir_for(...).
> For instance, Merb.dir_for(:model) will tell you where to expect Merb
> models.
>
> - debugger support including from within the spec runner"
>
>
> Abso-fraggin-lutely. This would be a killer feature that could
> potentially get me to use NB.
Martin said he'll look into this. In the dev builds of the IDE debugging
a Merb app already works to some extent using remote debugging (I say to
some extent because it doesn't seem to work for everyone / every Merb
project).
>
>
> Does anyone have any particular things to add to that? I think the
> terminal emulator, which we should have in 7.0, already covers at
> least the merb console use case (we plan to migrate also the Rails
> and IRB consoles to use the terminal emulator when it's ready).
> Likewise, the new Rake runner in 6.5 should help in running
> /debugging specs, though it could probably use some enhancements
> to make it even more convenient.
>
>
> Not sure if you already have this, but Haml and Sass support would be
> great.
We have a plugin for Haml
(http://mediacast.sun.com/users/~tor/media/org-netbeans-modules-haml.nbm/details),
contributed by Dylan Bruzenak, but I'm not sure whether it is being
actively developed now. Does anyone here know whether the sources for it
are hosted on a public site somewhere?
>
>
> One thing to consider is whether Merb should have its own project
> type in the IDE, or whether it should be something that can be
> added to a Ruby or RoR project (I hear some people are using Merb
> in Rails applications). Ideally I guess having both options would
> be ideal, so the question is rather what should come first. Any
> thoughts on that?
>
>
> It makes more sense for Merb to have its own project type, especially
> in light of different directory structures, but also because Merb has
> been conceptually diverging from Rails and will probably continue to
> do so over time. For instance, it would be nice (in the future) to
> have a mode that makes it easy to develop a merb slice.
The slice concept seems interesting, definitely something to keep in
mind when implementing the project type for Merb. I think the IDE
doesn't deal too well with a project that uses slices currently (for
example multiple rakefiles is a bit of problem).
Thanks,
Erno
Sign up all who are interested:
RSS Feed