Bug 125663 - File Search would profit from allowing content types, not just file name patterns
Summary: File Search would profit from allowing content types, not just file name patt...
Status: ASSIGNED
Alias: None
Product: Platform
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Search (show other bugs)
Version: 3.2   Edit
Hardware: All All
: P5 enhancement (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: Platform-Search-Inbox CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-01-29 21:19 EST by David Williams CLA
Modified: 2019-09-06 16:14 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description David Williams CLA 2006-01-29 21:19:28 EST
The current file search dialog allows file name patterns to restrict the seearch. 
(e.g. "plugin.xml", "*.xml", or "*data.xml", or, even *). 

In some uses cases, though, users might find it easier to specify a contentType, or list of contentTypes, to restrict the search. For example, they could say to search only "XML Contenet Type", then however "XML" was currently defined would be search, this would include the *.xml, but also might include *.abc, or *.xsl, or whatever else the user had specified as xml. 

This was, I think, briefly mentioned in another defect, but I do not think ever entered into bugzilla. See   https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=78654#c12  

One advantage to users restricting by content type is matches would be more accurate with what they wanted to 'hit'. Plus performance certainly better than just specifying "*" (since maybe they couldn't remember, or didn't remember exact list of extensions, though they might know it was in some sort of xml. 

Also, this is sort of related to bug 125639, since if conetentTypes used, user could choose "text" (only) to be searched (or "all", which would include binary files, such as jars and zips).
Comment 1 Eclipse Webmaster CLA 2019-09-06 16:14:40 EDT
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.