Summary: | [Import/Export] [Zip Export APIs need to be public | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Eclipse Project] Platform | Reporter: | Grant Taylor <gdtaylor> |
Component: | IDE | Assignee: | Platform UI Triaged <platform-ui-triaged> |
Status: | NEW --- | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | enhancement | ||
Priority: | P5 | Keywords: | api, helpwanted |
Version: | 3.0.2 | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Hardware: | PC | ||
OS: | Windows 2000 | ||
Whiteboard: |
Description
Grant Taylor
2005-10-25 09:07:33 EDT
Looks like the class ZipFileExportOperation is now called ArchiveFileExportOperation in Eclipse 3.1 and above. But it's still not public. Hopefully we can do something to help out here. The Base64Encoder class was removed for 3.1 and the ZipFileExporter class was re-written: there is now TarFileExporter and ZipFileExporter classes, both of which are internal as of right now. It's tough to justify making an entire message class API. Is there a particular subset of the messages that you think should definitely be exposed or is it just a general thought that some of the messages could possibly come in handy for someone writing an export wizard? It was just a general thought. All I really need is a simple API for writing resources from the workspace to a zip. In Eclipse 3.0.2, that class is ZipFileExportOperation. I would be comfortable with just having the high-level APIs public and leaving the internal implementation classes protected. I can just imagine other developers wanting even more control than myself, hence I suggested making some of the other APIs public as well. This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet. If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant. |