Community
Participate
Working Groups
Build Identifier: When selecting New > Package in TS Explorer, user is presented with the generic new artifact wizard which requests for an artifact package and a name (see attached screenshot). It's a bit awkward to request an 'artifact package' when creating a new package. User should only be requested for the package name. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: In TS Explorer > Right click > new > Package
Created attachment 175073 [details] Screenshot
This is required as you need to know where the new package goes. If the user added from a context (e.g. right clicking a package then prime that). Your example needs to consider adding a package when there are existing packages e.g. src/com/mycompany/myApp/north src/com/mycompany/myApp/south src/com/mycompany/myApp/east src/com/mycompany/myApp/west I now select add a package 'department', so where should it go ?
(In reply to comment #2) > This is required as you need to know where the new package goes. > > If the user added from a context (e.g. right clicking a package then prime > that). > > Your example needs to consider adding a package when there are existing > packages e.g. > > src/com/mycompany/myApp/north > src/com/mycompany/myApp/south > src/com/mycompany/myApp/east > src/com/mycompany/myApp/west > > I now select add a package 'department', so where should it go ? I was thinking that the user would specify the full qualified name of the package. Example, under name, they would type in com.mycompany.myApp.west.department. If they have a package selected when they right click to create a new one, the name field can be populated with the selected package name followed by .newpackage (or something similar). I guess I'm thinking the way JDT/Package Explorer does this. I, personally, found it kind of strange to specify a package name in two different sections. However, we don't have to follow JDT's approach. If our users (i.e. you) are OK with the way this is done in TS explorer, then we can close this as WONT FIX.
Java Programmer ? I would assume Tigerstripe users are not programmers and design it to work like windows explorer (or the Apple GUI equivalent). I suggest you ask a few other users and get their opinion. The UML package should be an abstract concept, devolved from its implementation (may or may not be implemented as a directory).
Marking this as WONTFIX. If someone else finds it strange in the way packages are created in Tigerstripe, please feel free to reopen defect.
