Community
Participate
Working Groups
Build ID: I20070625-1500 Steps To Reproduce: 1.create java project with sources in "src" directory 2.set new source in root, in my example i have log4j. properties in root/project directory So in sources dialog are ProjectName/src (incl,exl. empty) ProjectName (include log4j.properties, exclude src) 3. Try CTRL-Shift-T(Open Type Dialog) and there will be list of source with path src.pakck1.pack2. ... There have to be path pack1.pack2. ...! 4. Choose and open --> error can't find type src. .... More information: Yes, it's not normal have sources in root directory and in src too but in version 3.2 it's not problem. When I remove second source folder from project Open type dialog works correctly. But my log4j.properties does not copy to bin folder. Thanks for your time and work. Georg Black
(In reply to comment #0) > Build ID: I20070625-1500 > > Steps To Reproduce: > 1.create java project with sources in "src" directory > 2.set new source in root, in my example i have log4j. properties in > root/project directory > So in sources dialog are > ProjectName/src (incl,exl. empty) > ProjectName (include log4j.properties, exclude src) > 3. Try CTRL-Shift-T(Open Type Dialog) and there will be list of source with > path src.pakck1.pack2. ... > There have to be path pack1.pack2. ...! > 4. Choose and open --> error can't find type src. .... > > > More information: > Yes, it's not normal have sources in root directory and in src too but in > version 3.2 it's not problem. When I remove second source folder from project > Open type dialog works correctly. But my log4j.properties does not copy to bin > folder. > > Thanks for your time and work. > Georg Black > I have to add information that I import projects from exadel studio (use eclipse 3.2). I compare .project and .classpath files but solution. I try delete all aource folders and add it again in eclipse 3.3 but without succes. Only close and open project sometimes helps but only for a short time. Your GB.
Created attachment 73647 [details] Proposed patch Just use the ascending order while rehashing fixes the problem. I could not see why this has been implemented in reverse order instead. Running perf tests on this patch does not show any regression. So, I release it for now and we'll see with Jerome if this could have any impact I cannot see...
Released for 3.4M1 in HEAD stream.
Verified for 3.4M1 using build I20070802-0800.
(In reply to comment #4) > Verified for 3.4M1 using build I20070802-0800. > Thanks for your work. GB.
I don't see any reason either why the rehashing was done in reverse order. Patch looks good.