Bug 123838

Summary:	[api][key binding] Provide text actions and commands in separate plug-in
Product:	[Eclipse Project] Platform	Reporter:	Randy Hudson <hudsonr>
Component:	Text	Assignee:	Platform-Text-Inbox <platform-text-inbox>
Status:	ASSIGNED ---	QA Contact:
Severity:	enhancement
Priority:	P3	CC:	darin.eclipse, david.balazic, douglas.pollock, t.orf
Version:	3.2
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	PC
OS:	Windows XP
Whiteboard:
Bug Depends on:
Bug Blocks:	45017, 67099

Description Randy Hudson

2006-01-13 17:10:45 EST

GEF needs to either re-use the command definitions in workbench.texteditor, or redeclare them, in which case the platform would need to merge identical definitions when encountered.

Comment 1 Randy Hudson

2006-01-13 17:12:10 EST

So the request is, can we create a new plug-in containing the actions, or should we implement a merge scenario. Let the debate begin...

Comment 2 Douglas Pollock

2006-01-13 17:36:14 EST

The thought of merging is something I dislike, but not that I'm totally adverse to.  I would prefer it if clients of the command framework sorted out their dependency issues on their own.

Comment 3 Randy Hudson

2006-01-15 22:48:46 EST

Agreed, but can we still get a statement on what the current merge behavior ought to be?

Comment 4 Dani Megert

2006-01-16 06:25:46 EST

I'd also like to know how duplicates are currently handled. I think normally clients and plug-in writers would prefer to be warned if they a command(ID) is contributed twice. Merge should probably only happen explicitly, e.g. by an additional attribute in the extension.

Comment 5 Douglas Pollock

2006-01-16 10:39:38 EST

The last command defined (in registry read order) wins.

Comment 6 Dani Megert

2006-01-16 10:50:36 EST

No warning is issued? If so, this might be a valid solution until we create that plug-in.

Comment 7 Douglas Pollock

2006-01-16 10:53:34 EST

No warning is issued, but this behaviour is not something you can rely on.

Comment 8 Dani Megert

2006-01-27 03:05:54 EST

*** Bug 78357 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 9 T. Orf

2016-05-15 18:12:29 EDT

I don't understand what this bug is really about, but if it is still blocking 45017, could someone please look into this?