Community
Participate
Working Groups
3.3 RC3 - Default reset Java perspective - Drag a view such that it's next to the package explorer. You should have two views that consume 100% of the vertical space, an editor area, and a stack directly below the editor area - Drag a view with the intention that it goes below the two vertical views on the left hand side of the window. You cant do it. You can either go below one particular view or both views AND the stack below the editor. Additionally on OS X (but not Vista) if you are positioned directly over the resize sash near the bottom of the screen you get a detached view indicator. Releasing while in this detached view state does not create a detached view, however, but rather a new 100% vertical aligned tabstack
This works for me...I set up your scenario then dragged the Declaration view from the bottom stack to create a third stack in the group on the left. I think the trick you need is to stay -inside- the bounds of the lower left-hand view stack. Try this; Drag a view from the bottom stack and move the cursor to the center of the bottom left stack. Now move the cursor down until you're nearing the bottom edge of the stack (but still inside it). As you approach the bottom of the stack you should see the gray rectangle that matches the stack bounds change to one that's half the height of the stack. When you get this release the button and you should get a new stack below the other one.
Sorry Kim, didn't see who reported it. I seem to be able to do this...perhaps I'm missing something in the setup?
OK, The behavior as described isn't supported by the layout engine (it doesn't have any concept of 'aggregate' stacks (i.e. the area defined by the two vertical stacks in your scenario). It only allows creating a new stack in relation to a single existing one. The 'Detached' effect showing up when traversing a splitter (on the Mac) is annoying though so I'll keep this around to track that part of the defect.
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.
