This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.

Bug 44227 - UI: "redeploy" action is strange w/o deploy
Summary: UI: "redeploy" action is strange w/o deploy
Status: VERIFIED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: javaee
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Code (show other bugs)
Version: 4.x
Hardware: All All
: P3 blocker (vote)
Assignee: Ann Sunhachawee
URL: http://web.netbeans.org/nonav/doc/web...
Keywords: UI
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-06-02 16:48 UTC by Ana.von Klopp
Modified: 2007-08-03 09:42 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Exception Reporter:


Attachments
ui spec on deploy context menu items. (3.58 KB, text/html)
2004-06-18 01:47 UTC, Ann Sunhachawee
Details
2nd deploy spec (3.68 KB, text/html)
2004-06-25 00:34 UTC, Ann Sunhachawee
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Ana.von Klopp 2004-06-02 16:48:43 UTC
There are three actions on the project: 

1. Run project 
2. Run project in debugger
3. Redeploy

Linguistically, it is strange to have a redeploy 
action if there is no deploy action. 

I think you mean that you force a reload when 
executing, and it would be better to say that. 
"Redeploy" is not self-explanatory in this 
context.
Comment 1 Marek Fukala 2004-06-07 14:29:11 UTC
Just a comment: The "reload" has different meaning in Tomcat's
terminology. It means to reset the web application - classloader loads
all classes againg and the application is started from scratch. The
"redeploy" does something more - you know what. So calling the action
"reload" may be also confusing ;-). "Restart" seems to be better for me.
Comment 2 Martin Grebac 2004-06-10 13:24:21 UTC
To Marek: I don't agree with reasoning for Restart - the action still
does something more than restart (same as redeploy does more). More, I
think we shouldn't name IDE's project actions based on Tomcat's
dictionary.

To Ana: Do you have some suggestions? As I understand it, you're for
something like 'Force project redeploy'. Am I right?

Lowering priority - this really isn't a P2 issue.
Comment 3 Marek Fukala 2004-06-10 13:37:22 UTC
I just wanted to express that the "reload" seems to me to be
confusing. That's why I proposed the "restart". In spite of that I
consider the current "Redeploy Project" as sufficient and quite
self-explanatory.
Comment 4 Martin Grebac 2004-06-16 14:29:29 UTC
Seems like the current state is OK.
Comment 5 Ana.von Klopp 2004-06-16 15:16:41 UTC
What???!!!

Did you confirm this with a writer or HIE? 

Comment 6 Chris Kutler 2004-06-16 15:28:45 UTC
We have done quite a bit of "theorizing" here but no efforts to
validate our theories. Such as asking 3 engineers (new to web apps, 6
months experience, expert) "What do you think will happen when you
choose this menu item."

How about getting input from nbusers "What went through your head the
first time you saw the Redeploy menu item without a "Deploy" menu
item? What did you discern?" "What does restart mean to you?" "What
does reload mean to you?" 
Comment 7 Geertjan Wielenga 2004-06-16 15:44:13 UTC
This has probably already been thought of and rejected, but what about
changing "Run project" to "Deploy project" (and "Run project in
debugger" to "Deploy project in debugger")? Then "Redeploy" would make
sense.

My interpretation of the three actions is that they're counterparts,
therefore I would expect the verb to be the same.

I like the idea of getting input from nbusers.
Comment 8 Ana.von Klopp 2004-06-16 16:00:12 UTC
Instead of wondering about what the current processes do and how best 
to describe them from the point of view of how the NetBeans developers 
would describe what the current implementation does, let's take 
another perspective and consider what the developer needs to do. 

For our future needs, let's note that the available selection does not 
meet real developers' needs (for example, you need to be able to 
deploy a module without trying to show a page in the browser, and you 
need to be able to restart the server). In short, don't worry about 
what our IDE and other IDEs do quite yet - check actual needs and how 
those developers would describe them. 

In the short term, we won't be able to add those extra actions that 
real developers need, but we will be able to assess the options we 
have and how they fare relative to that list. And we should be able to 
name them according to how the real developers describe the actions. 
Comment 9 Ann Sunhachawee 2004-06-16 23:50:16 UTC
There's a lot to comment on here:

User feedback - good idea, esp as Ana says we don't have time in the
short term. Has there been any nbusers postings regarding this issue?

Ana's comment on not being able to run a project without launching a
browser: you can. There's a project properties checkbox. Restarting a
server  is a known user need which can be accessed from the Runtime
tab, but this need to be redesigned. we haven't had the resources or
priority to do this redesign afaik yet.

Using the term "Run" v "Deploy" : We should keep with the standard
word Run for consistency. Deploy should be considered a separate
action if necessary.

What user's want: This is different than what they get (and then they
have their own workarounds). Do they really want to restart a server,
redeploy an app? Not really - thir goal is to quickly see how their
changes affect the app. Because of this, I'd argue that the ability
for the IDE to deploy dynamically and silently as other IDEs do is
something NB should look into. 

That's a tall order, so while that's getting filled or not, one stop
gap measure is the offer a contextual menu called Deploy or Deployment
off of any node within the project which has the various "needed"
actions, such as "Deploy", "Redeploy", "Undeploy" on the nodes within
the project that enable/disable accordingly.
Comment 10 Ann Sunhachawee 2004-06-18 01:47:33 UTC
Created attachment 15820 [details]
ui spec on deploy context menu items.
Comment 11 Ann Sunhachawee 2004-06-18 01:47:51 UTC
Added UI spec for Deploy actions.
Comment 12 Martin Grebac 2004-06-22 16:04:18 UTC
 Ann, thanks for the ui spec. I'm setting target milestone to future,
because we already had feature-freeze for D and we still have some
unsolved issues. 
 I actually started implementing it, but then realized some problems. 

 I think the only real new action is undeploy (we do have redeploy
currently, and deploy can be set by user in project customizer as
mentioned above). 
 But, we  are not able to enable/disable the actions in reasonable
time based on 'deployed' status of the project (server start could be
needed for this). If we are not able to provide good support for
undeploy, then the Deploy submenu doesn't make much sense to me - I
think we should look for a different solution.
Comment 13 Ann Sunhachawee 2004-06-25 00:34:49 UTC
Created attachment 15993 [details]
2nd deploy spec
Comment 14 Ann Sunhachawee 2004-06-25 00:35:17 UTC
Attached an updated spec.. biggest changes:
-removal of undeploy
-deploy action will only do the deploy, not start server (making it
different than Run Project)
-reword "Redeploy Project" to "Redeploy & Run Project" to reflect the
true nature of the action
Comment 15 Pavel Buzek 2004-06-25 16:07:30 UTC
What does the last spec solve?

1. How will the user be able to tell the difference between "Run
Project" and "Deploy > Deploy Project"?
Well, actually there is no difference when "Display Browser on Run" is
not checked. Is this an improvement?

2. 
<quote>
Redeploy & Run Project
Always enabled. (Though ideally enabled only when project is currently
running) It will undeploy the project from the server  and do the
"Deploy Project" action.
</quote>
We have Run action and Deploy action but "Redeploy & Run" actually
does undeploy + Deploy

Did I miss something? Please come up with better design if you want to
change anything.


Comment 16 Pavel Buzek 2004-09-09 01:00:36 UTC
Changing version - this will apparently not be fixed in 4.0 as we are
still waiting for a UI spec.
Comment 17 zikmund 2005-02-15 10:34:58 UTC
Fixed in 4.1 UI spec - see URL.

Filed issue 54565 for being up-to-date with UI spec.
Comment 18 Dan Kolar 2007-08-03 09:42:38 UTC
v