Summary: | [ActionSets] How to define ordering of action sets | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Eclipse Project] Platform | Reporter: | Dirk Baeumer <dirk_baeumer> |
Component: | UI | Assignee: | Simon Arsenault <simon_arsenault> |
Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | P2 | CC: | erich_gamma, john.arthorne |
Version: | 2.0 | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Hardware: | PC | ||
OS: | Windows 2000 | ||
Whiteboard: |
Description
Dirk Baeumer
2002-04-24 13:05:06 EDT
You're right, this is currently not possible. We would have to use some kind of order number scheme. We have no work planned in this area. How critical is this for 2.0? Erich told me that you have asked for this. So it is up to you to deceide how important that is <g>. Yes, I wanted to know the reason for the monolithic Java action set, and this explains it. I'm fine with this situation if you are. If you feel its important to break it up, you need to let me know. The ui team has also been looking at "pre-processing" all the menu definitions for actions sets before adding the actions (to deal with the problem plugin A has action set with menu "Foo" definition, and plugin B has an action set whose actions should also show in menu "Foo" definition, causing plugin B to define it again...even is plugin B dependented on plugin A). If we had that support, then the refactor action set menu definition could indicate if goes after the source menu definition which was defined in the source action set. Because the workbench has processed all the menu definitions, it would know where the source menu is even if it is not shown at the moment (source action set not turn on). *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 15670 *** |