Bug 112635 - API: ITypeHierarchy:isSuperType
Summary: API: ITypeHierarchy:isSuperType
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: JDT
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: 3.2   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 enhancement with 1 vote (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: JDT-Core-Inbox CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: 201718
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2005-10-14 10:54 EDT by Martin Aeschlimann CLA
Modified: 2007-09-25 09:54 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Martin Aeschlimann CLA 2005-10-14 10:54:16 EDT 
20051014

I think it would make sense to add this API to ITypeHierarchy as it can be  
implemented more efficient on ITypeHierarchy. (less arrays created)

boolean ITypeHierarchy.isSuperType(IType possibleSuperType, IType type)
Comment 1 Dani Megert CLA 2007-09-25 08:46:23 EDT 
+1. Would help improving performance for bug 201718.
Comment 2 Jerome Lanneluc CLA 2007-09-25 09:03:14 EDT 
Is this bug really blocking bug 201718, or would it just improve the performance ?
Comment 3 Dani Megert CLA 2007-09-25 09:06:45 EDT 
>Is this bug really blocking bug 201718, or would it just improve the
>performance ?
Well, the only point/problem of bug 201718 is performance - so yes.
Comment 4 Jerome Lanneluc CLA 2007-09-25 09:24:31 EDT 
My reading of bug 201718 is that the performance is unacceptable (5 seconds to insert the proposal). I believe that the proposed change in bug 201718 comment 6 will bring this performance around 0.5 second, which is now acceptable. 

I don't believe that we will gain much more by fixing this bug. I agree that we will gain some array creations, but this will be nothing compare to what we gain with the change in bug 201718 comment 6. 

So, yes, this enhancement request will improve performances, but this won't be noticeable to the user. This is why I don't think that bug 201718 is blocked by this bug.
Comment 5 Martin Aeschlimann CLA 2007-09-25 09:50:28 EDT 
Note that what's the confusion here probably comes from the wording bugzilla uses:
Dani entered: bug 201718 'depends on' bug 112635. Which is true. It's nice for bug 201718 to get a mail update when something changes in bug 112635 happens.
In bug 112635 this translates to 'bug 112635 blocks bug 201718' which is of course not true.
We have other places where 'isSuperType' would help is it would be nice to have. I guess it takes like 1/2 hour to implement.
Comment 6 Dani Megert CLA 2007-09-25 09:54:30 EDT 
Martin's right. I just wanted to mark ours as 'dependent'. It won't stop me from doing the other improvement.