This content has been marked as final. Show 13 replies
Good idea. Be sure to log it in the exchange as K suggests. Also , I've got on the list an auto group something like a dynamic folder based on the target db. So all connections going to Host ABC could be dynamically grouped into a folder. That could help you out also when we have time to build it out.
Or tag based grouping? You could assign an arbitrary set of tags to a connection (dev,test,prod; or customer names) and then create a folder for each tag. The target database could be an automatically generated tag.
This could result in a connection appearing in more than one folder but I don't see that as a problem.
I've added a feature request with this.
Edited by: Jim Smith on Jan 25, 2011 10:56 AM
I do appreciate that a lot of people are raising requests here but i cannot understand why they are not looking/searching on SQL Exchange first to see what others requested already and VOTE before open new ones.
The above request has been added since October 2010
and only 3 people voted.
If we don't follow the rules - together - this product won't get improved in a reasonable time (not years).
Hope you understand my good intention.
archimede wrote:There is an existing enhancement request for this for which you can vote.
These are all interesting ideas, but I find just as important (I dare say more important) have grouping everywhere is needed: left pane of New / Select Database Connection dialog, SQL Worksheet button, Select Connection dialog, etc.
I will add to Dani's point. There are a lot of features on the Exchange. I do bulk updates and reviews a few times a year, basically "living" in the Exchange closing out requests done, reviewing new requests etc. for a week or so. I tend to do this in the lead up to an early adopter release cycle (so I moved the features we have done to "In Release 3.0 as we started the EA release cycle for 3.0). I'll review them again once we've gone production, moving features not done to the next release and seeing which new features there are. We also do it when we plan a new release. The list is long and growing longer, so I work through it by +rank+, not by age of request. If a feature was added by one person 3 years ago, this does not increase the likelihood of it being done, but reduces it. We feel you're not that bothered and one or two people requesting is not enough. Duplicate requests continue to water down the request.
That's not the only consideration, we may want to do a feature, but it may require structural IDE changes or need a good chunk of time to do properly, so the feature is queued up, both Scheduler and the new implementation of the Query Builder are examples of that.
Quite often a feature appears small to the requestor, but the team point out the implications to a broader audience and so the feature remains on hold.
In short - please keep voting on a feature. We have implemented many, many feature requests from the Exchange, so apologies if your (anyone) feature does not come up - we're working on it.
For the specific "folders in drop list" request, this is more involved that a folder to group connections, so we're aware of it and may look into it for next time, but it won't be in 3.0. Keep voting.
I didn't want to sound harsh and I apologize if it came out that way.
And thanks for taking time to explain the review process: I for one had no idea of how those requests are currently handled.
I confess I still have some doubts regarding the "working through by rank" part of your post: does a request rated 10 by ONE person is more important than another with an average rating of 7 voted by TEN persons? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know.
And what does Accepted - Unscheduled mean exactly? There are more than 10k requests in this state and some ranked 9.5 are 4 or 5 years old.
Lastly, sometimes this is what you get after searching or sorting: http://img98.imageshack.us/i/selection001d.png/
All my "ranting" just to say that, while I understand it is not an easy task to follow (let alone please) all the requests, it should not come as a surprise that someone does not feel compelled to use the Exchange site.
Anyway, keep up the good work!
No problem, I did not think you were harsh. I really wanted you and other readers to be aware that we do take the requests seriously and as the years pass so the list grows. It's difficult when someone puts a single entry in with 2 or more requests and it's frustrating when their are duplicates. But in general, it's a useful resource for us and provides me with a pretty clear voice from part of our community The best and easiest requests are clear , with examples. If the voting is all 10's that's easy, if there have been loads of votes, but the average is low, then I look at why and it can be that some folk say "yes please, 10points" and others say" no thanks 1 point"! When I say rank I mean I looking at the weighting and the score. How many people voted and what they voted. We have many users, and many who never get involved on the forums, it's important we listen to as many as we can, to get a general feel.
Accepted - unscheduled means we like the feature, may well do it, but it's not going into the next release. So the Query Builder and Scheduler had that status for a while. You'll see the "Diff" feature is sitting at Accepted at the moment. So we know we want to do work on that but we knew it would not be reworked for 3.0. I did a blog on the various pieces last year. sql-developer-exchange-features
As for the screen shot, I need to look into that. I have not been back to the site since I updated the 3.0 list, hence many of the new request are not reviewed yet, but there is also something amiss. I may not get to it this week, but will sort out the UI issue as soon as possible. Thanks for alerting me to that.
if i've picked you up correctly I'm sure this feature (without tagging) is already there.
On the connections window and once you have created one connection highlight the connection and right-click. select 'add to folder -> New folder...'
I have used this feature since v2.1.1.
hope this helps.