Bug 199645 - [WorkbenchParts] Can WorkbenchPage support MultiPageEditorPart like MultiEditor
Summary: [WorkbenchParts] Can WorkbenchPage support MultiPageEditorPart like MultiEditor
Status: ASSIGNED
Alias: None
Product: Platform
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: UI (show other bugs)
Version: 3.2.2   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 enhancement (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: Platform UI Triaged CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-08-11 05:24 EDT by lsylipei CLA
Modified: 2019-09-06 16:15 EDT (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description lsylipei CLA 2007-08-11 05:24:35 EDT
Here is a piece of code from WorkbenchPage:
 if (part instanceof MultiEditor) {
            part = ((MultiEditor) part).getActiveEditor();
        }
        // Activate part.
        //if (window.getActivePage() == this) {
        IWorkbenchPartReference ref = getReference(part);
        internalBringToTop(ref);
        setActivePart(part);


see? when an EditorPart is an instance fo MultiEditor, then all part active operation will effect on the active editor in this MultiEditor.
Why not let MultiPageEditorPart have the same treatment?
They are the editor that can combine other editors, they need the same feature.
I'm tired make the active editor in MultiPageEditorPart have it's own PropertyPage and OutlinePage.It's an nightmare.
Comment 1 Paul Webster CLA 2007-08-13 14:01:58 EDT
We are looking at a more "component" like view of both editors and views.

One of the things I'd like to see it do is to make MultiPageEditorPart work as more of a "first class citizen" and to remove hacks like the one for MultiEditor that are in the code.

PW
Comment 2 Eclipse Webmaster CLA 2019-09-06 16:15:54 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.