Yes, they are system variables although they are not present by default. Someone has to have manually added them.
If you are not developing with Scala then you can safely ignore SBT_OPTS. Likewise, if you are not developing in Java then you are not likely to need JAVA_OPTS. But I am assuming you do, and therefore you would be ok with starting up Terminal.app, using your favourite text editor (VI, Nano, or other), open .bash_profile (the system defaults is BASH), and either add or change these variables. If you don’t find these on your machine then you probably never needed them until now and thus can safely ignore them.
]]>Where Can I find the “JAVA_OPTS” and “SBT_OPS” variables? Are they system variables?
Thanks,
]]>Interesting. I need to dive into the details. As the IDE becomes distributed, it also inherits the challenges inherent with that architecture. I’m curious how this is being addressed, so I’ve got to look at the source code. Rewriting the UI is going to give plugin developers quite a bit migration work to do. Most of the IDE reinvention endeavours I am aware of have really just focused on replicating the Eclipse model around a text editor, not much reinvention in my view. The ones that took the playground approach, like Xcode, have offered more. Che’s a hybrid WorkStation/Server model is innovative from the deployment perspective, but I think it could be ambitious beyond Docker though. The IDE of 2016 could benefit by being a streaming hub for a network of components, would you see Che going in that direction or would you rather it only focuses on the microservice idea and not much else?
]]>Eclipse extensions can move over – but it’s easiest to move the server and data logic extensions into the workspace. Eclipse GUI extensions have to be rewritten from SWT into GWT, which is what we used to generate the JavaScript IDE.
]]>That was a super fast reaction! Thanks for taking the time to clarify. You and team clearly are on he ball.
I certainly am not underestimating the challenge of reinventing a platform that’s been so successful. The containerisation pattern is definitely promising. I did wonder about potential fragmentation. For example, whether the plugin system would be moving in that direction too. If not, wouldn’t that keep some complexity around? And if it did, then the granularity (as opposed to OSGI or Project Jigsaw) could also come to question.
This is such an undertaking that I also want to take the time to applaud the achievement so far.
]]>Unfortunately, Docker requires a VM on Mac and Windows, but this is a temporary issue.
]]>