Community
Participate
Working Groups
Build ID: I20070503-1400 (3.3 release) This is rather change request. Is it possible to add into public API for DeferredTreeContentManager class method that returns family ID in order to let user to synchronize against children collection process?
Could you please explain your use case in more detail? Thanks.
I just want to have a sort of synchronization with fetch children process. Family identification object is not exposed in the current implementation of DeferredTreeContentManager class. Instead of natural way I have to use job change listener, which is not reliable (at least in theory, because job can finish before listener added).
I'll try to look at this for 3.4 M5.
Sorry, but I still don't understand what your use case is. Why do you need to synchronize with the job that executes the fetching of children? Can this synchronization not be done elsewhere?
I just want to do some job after all the children are collected, not earlier. I wouldn't ask about creating of new feature specially for me. But I made a search and found that there were somebody else who needed this functionality (see http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.platform.rcp/msg24481.html for example). Besides that I thought that this was very trivial task (just change of method visibility attribute or something like that). Never mind if I fell in mistake thinking this way because the workaround works well so far. It would be nice to have this option, but I cannot say that I critically need it. Thanks for paying attention on this case.
Mass update - removing 3.4 target. This was one of the bugs I marked for investigation (and potential fixing) in 3.4 but I ran out of time. Please ping on the bug if fixing it would be really important for 3.4, and does not require API changes or feature work.
Hitesh is now responsible for watching bugs in the [Viewers] component area.
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.
