Bug 133339 - Remove quickAssistProcessor extension point
Summary: Remove quickAssistProcessor extension point
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Platform
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Text (show other bugs)
Version: 3.2   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: 3.2 M6   Edit
Assignee: Platform-Text-Inbox CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: api
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-03-27 06:19 EST by Dani Megert CLA
Modified: 2006-03-27 14:34 EST (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Dani Megert CLA 2006-03-27 06:19:01 EST
I20060322-0800

In M5 Platform Text added the quickAssistProcessor extension-point without implementing it and with the hopes to get the code in for 3.2 M6. This was too optimistic for several reasons as we learned now:

- the extension point would not be able to fulfill its promises because an
  editor implementer which overrides the default behavior would no longer honor
  the extension point. We should provide APIs in 3.3 allows editor contributors 
  to easily define their own quick assist extension point, similar to the one
  already offered in JDT UI.

- an extension to this extension point can affect any editor we would
  need a preference UI that allows to control this and that's lot of UI
  feature work.

- we would not have a client inside the Eclipse SDK i.e. not eating our own
  dog food. JDT can't easily switch to it because its extension point and the
  code that goes along with it is API.

- the new code would not be well tested and pose a risk.

- other work like performance, bug fixing EclipseCon work took longer than 
  planned.

For all those reasons we have to remove the extension point again. So far no one could have really used it because there was no implementation behind i.e. we won't break any client or remove current functionality. Also note that the quick assist APIs that we introduce for 3.2 remain in place and are already in use e.g. by PDE UI.
Comment 1 Dani Megert CLA 2006-03-27 06:21:04 EST
Asking Philippe for approval.
Comment 2 Philipe Mulet CLA 2006-03-27 06:36:42 EST
+1 for not exposing this API proposal. It is not used anyway today, and should be hidden before exposed.

Mike - do you agree ?
Comment 3 Dani Megert CLA 2006-03-27 10:55:49 EST
Fixed in HEAD.
Available in builds > I20060327-0800.
Comment 4 Mike Wilson CLA 2006-03-27 14:34:23 EST
+1