Bug 105893

Summary:	[refactoring] Safe Delete Refactoring
Product:	[Eclipse Project] JDT	Reporter:	Leif Hanack <leif.hanack>
Component:	UI	Assignee:	JDT-UI-Inbox <jdt-ui-inbox>
Status:	ASSIGNED ---	QA Contact:
Severity:	enhancement
Priority:	P3	CC:	ankur_sharma, bmiller, daniel_megert, eclipse, nikolaymetchev, reprogrammer
Version:	3.1.1
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	All
Whiteboard:

Description Leif Hanack

2005-08-03 04:27:56 EDT

it would be a great enhancement if a safe delete of classes/methods/fields is
supported.

this refactoring is useful in cases where you need to remove a
class/method/field and check whether it is used. 

more details could be found here: 
http://www.jetbrains.com/idea/docs/help/refactoring/safedelete.html

Comment 1 Martin Aeschlimann

2005-11-28 03:49:56 EST

*** Bug 118022 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 2 Ankur Sharma

2011-07-24 14:37:50 EDT

This enhancement will make the refactoring the designs a lot easier and safer.

Comment 3 Dani Megert

2011-07-25 02:57:53 EDT

(In reply to comment #2)
> This enhancement will make the refactoring the designs a lot easier and safer.

Only if the member isn't API and only of you are 100% sure that you have all existing client code in your workspace. Otherwise it gives you false hope.

Comment 4 Thomas Singer

2011-07-25 08:57:58 EDT

(In reply to comment #3)
> Only if the member isn't API and only of you are 100% sure that you have all
> existing client code in your workspace. Otherwise it gives you false hope.

Please understand that there are people outside which use Eclipse for their own projects. Not everybody develops libraries. Not everybody makes use of reflection - there should be people which avoid reflection to get reliable find usage results.

Comment 5 Dani Megert

2011-07-25 09:36:45 EDT

(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Only if the member isn't API and only of you are 100% sure that you have all
> > existing client code in your workspace. Otherwise it gives you false hope.
> 
> Please understand that
I do. I'm not saying it's not useful - just wanted to put the "safe" into the right perspective.