Bug 47362 - [EditorMgmt] Missing API for determining type of editor
Summary: [EditorMgmt] Missing API for determining type of editor
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Platform
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: UI (show other bugs)
Version: 3.0   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: Platform UI Triaged CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2003-11-24 11:36 EST by Jean-Michel Lemieux CLA
Modified: 2019-09-06 16:09 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 Jean-Michel Lemieux CLA 2003-11-24 11:36:51 EST
3.0M5
To implement the CVS annotate command we use the following logic (currently 
implemented using access to internal UI classes):

1. retreive a remote revision of file X
2. figure out if the editor for file X is a ITextEditor. This is required 
because only subclasses of ITextEditor can be support the API for sync'ing the 
annotate view with the editor line locations.
3. if the editor for file X is not a ITextEditor then open using the default 
text editor otherwise use the default.

Currently this workflow is unsupported with the current editor API.
Comment 1 Markus Keller CLA 2007-08-16 09:21:57 EDT
This is the only unresolved API problem that prevents org.eclipse.team.cvs.ui from compiling without internal API usage warnings.
Comment 2 Susan McCourt CLA 2009-07-09 19:03:33 EDT
As per http://wiki.eclipse.org/Platform_UI/Bug_Triage_Change_2009
Comment 3 Boris Bokowski CLA 2009-11-17 13:05:32 EST
Remy is now responsible for watching the [EditorMgmt] component area.
Comment 4 Remy Suen CLA 2010-04-13 14:16:07 EDT
Do I understand correctly that this is a request to ask the editor registry to see if the editor for the revision is an implementation of the ITextEditor interface? This seems to imply the act of forcibly loading bundles to retrieve this information.
Comment 5 Eclipse Webmaster CLA 2019-09-06 16:09:48 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.