Community
Participate
Working Groups
I've done several XML editors using the SSE XML as a basis - and it is quite impressive. You recieve a lot of basic editing features while still can easily customize the content assist, validation and other facilities. But this framework has a wilder reach then web tools - say, ANT editor, PDE editor - they all miss features they will recieve "for free" if they were built on top of SSE XML. Many 3rd party plugins have to introduce dependency on WTP even if all they need is the SSE XML editing (check Hibernate Tools and SpringIDE). I believe Eclipse platform will benefit if the SSE core and SSE XML are moved there. Another side effect of such refactoring would be users getting XML editor out of the box, without downloading the WTP.
I've modified the summary a bit to make it more open (it's not just XML). Note that currently (as per scope definition) XML (editing) is the job of WTP and not Eclipse SDK, though I agree that it would be good to have a simple XML editor in the Eclipse SDK itself.
EMF and EMF users could certainly make use of this type of facility but WTP's dependency on EMF makes this difficult for us to exploit this...
*** Bug 153864 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to comment #1) > Note that currently (as per scope definition) XML (editing) is the job of WTP > and not Eclipse SDK, though I agree that it would be good to have a simple XML > editor in the Eclipse SDK itself. Stuff like schema editing, etc is definitely not for pltform. But XML editor with basic schema and dtd valication is something is really missing from the platform...
Any update on this? Will we ever see a common basic XML editor in the Platform?
This might be an interesting topic for 3.4.
(In reply to comment #6) > This might be an interesting topic for 3.4. Now I wondering why exactly users and developers have to wait another 2 years for this feature? Note that every other ide, except Eclipse, have an xml editor out of the box.
Because there exist plans and afaik the community did not suggest this non-minor (in relation to workforce) item to be put on the plan - of course as a replacement for another proposed item. >Note that every other ide, except Eclipse, have an xml editor >out of the box. Sure, but most other IDEs also have a guy builder - I doubt you would suggest to put all the code from the VE project into the SDK? But I agree it is different because with VEP you get exactly what you need while afaik it is currently not possible to get just the XML editor as a partial download from WTP. David, would that be something WTP could offer?
(In reply to comment #8) > Because there exist plans and afaik the community did not suggest this > non-minor (in relation to workforce) item to be put on the plan - of course as > a replacement for another proposed item. Presence of this enhancement request is a sign of such interest in the community. I should also point you to this collection of bugs, which is a good indication of the missing feature in the IDE. https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=8751 https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30686 https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31951 https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=41232 You need to take into account that at some point community is get tired of asking the same thing over the years... > >Note that every other ide, except Eclipse, have an xml editor > >out of the box. > Sure, but most other IDEs also have a guy builder - I doubt you would suggest > to put all the code from the VE project into the SDK? But I agree it is > different because with VEP you get exactly what you need Heh. I wish. I tried to use VEP several times and it plainly does not work for stuff I need (SWT, JFace, forms). Luckily there is another product that is smaller and working great. > while afaik it is > currently not possible to get just the XML editor as a partial download from > WTP. David, would that be something WTP could offer? Last time I tried to extract XML editor from WTP it was somewhere over 10-15mb of plugins (probably half of WTP). It is hard to believe that it have to be that big for simple editing needs.
Eugene, I'm aware that there are many bugs/features that people would like to see but keep in mind that you need sponsorship for a bug or feature. That's what ends up on the plan. We don't have endless resources and the things that get done first are those were someone decides to denote people/time/money to implement it.
(In reply to comment #10) Daniel, sponsorship != community. I know that everything require time, but one should think strategically and everybody will benefit in a long run. For instance, PDE wouldn't have to spend time on implementing completion features in their own editor during 3.3 development cycles...
The PDE could definitely benefit from reusing the XML editing support and could also benefit from having EMF models for supporting its logical models. GEF is another example of something that PDE could use. None of this seems possible because these things aren't part of the platform and in the usual chicken and the egg type of problem, something can't be part of the platform if it's not used by the platform and can't be used by the platform if it's not already part of it. This appears to prevent anything not already in the platform from getting ever there... If would be nice if WTP at least packaged this as a separate feature (just as EMF needs to provide finer grained features which we will hopefully have time for that during this release cycle).
(In reply to comment #8) > David, would that be something WTP could offer? > Yes, that is our plan.
(In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #8) > > David, would that be something WTP could offer? > Yes, that is our plan. David, any idea on the time frame?
This has been stale for awhile ... :( +1 for SSE being available in the platform... if the tabbed property sheets can come out of nowhere and end up in the platform, I don't see why this can't after proper due diligence is done so we don't bring in the whole kitchen sink.
Dani, Are there plans to introduce a "lightweight" XML editor/framework into the SDK in 3.4? This would have a huge impact under the "Enterprise-ready" theme.
(In reply to comment #16) > Dani, > > Are there plans to introduce a "lightweight" XML editor/framework into the SDK > in 3.4? > > This would have a huge impact under the "Enterprise-ready" theme. > I'm not sure I see the connection to "enterprise-ready", or else I don't know what enterprise-ready means! For the Platform to literally provide an XML Editor framework, I think would take some joint work with WTP to make sure the scope of all projects involved was understood and respected. For what it's worth, the XML Editor from WTP is available separately from the rest of WTP and can be installed on just the Eclipse Platform if desired. If you want XML Editor + Java you can use the EPP package called "Eclipse IDE for Java Developers". See http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/moreinfo/java.php Currently, this is available only from the Europa update site or the EPP packages (that is, we do not provide a separate zip on our downloads page at this time. If that is desired, please open a new feature request on WTP). I think this EPP packaging is the right way to provide a full function XML Editor with other functions users desire. If it is ever desired to convert PDE and/or the Ant editor to use the same framework, then that would take some project movement (and, lots of re-work!).
Wassim, currently there are neither plans nor resources to do this. >For the Platform to literally provide an XML Editor framework, I think would >take some joint work with WTP to make sure the scope of all projects involved >was understood and respected. Right. And of course PDE, Ant etc.
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.
