[news.eclipse.tools] Re: editor extensions registration options?

[Thomas Mäder <Thomas_Maeder@xxxxxxx>]

Gary,

You might want to read §7.6 in the java language spec. I just have an old
version handy, but in there it says that the host system may choose to
consider it a compilation error if the public type in a compilation unit isn't
named like the compilation unit file itself. So it's not just convention. Why
don't you just try it in Eclipse?

Thomas

Gary Johnston wrote:

> We are building a graphical editor for a certain kind of "goober" (and
> let's just leave it at that so that I don't have to spend space describing
> what a "goober" is, which isn't really relevant).  A goober is actually
> saved as a Java source file (i.e., a .java file and corresponding compiled
> class file), one goober class definition per .java/.class file in our
> case.  So, every goober shows up in the Navigator as a .java file, but not
> all .java files are goobers, of course.  We'd like to register our goobers
> (with the editor extension point) such that 1) goobers have a distinct
> icon in the navigator (so user's can tell which .java files are goobers
> and which aren't), 2) double-clicking on a goober source file opens our
> goober editor (rather than the Java source editor), and 3) the file is
> otherwise treated as a normal .java file (e.g., the Java source editor
> could be opened on it via "Open with" from the context menu).
>
> The approach we're considering is to register (in our plugin.xml) the
> extension "goober.java", specifying our own goober icon and our goober
> editor.  I have a few questions about this approach:
>
> 1) Would this basically work the way we want it to?  Would our icon be
> used by the Navigator for .goober.java files, or would it just be ignored
> (i.e., .java file icon would override it)?  Would our editor be invoked if
> one double-clicked on a .goober.java file, or would the Java source editor
> still be invoked?  Would the Java source editor still be available via
> "Open with" from the context menu?  More generally, does an "foo.bar"
> editor extension registration override a "bar" extension registration
> while still leaving "bar" registered tools available via the context menu,
> etc.?
>
> 2) Are we making any trouble for ourselves WRT the Eclipse Java tools due
> to the fact that our goober .java and .class files won't follow the common
> convention that, for example, MyClass.java contains the definition for a
> single class, MyClass, and compiles to MyClass.class?  Our approach
> violates this convention because the class defined in, say,
> MyGoober.goober.java would be MyGoober and would, of course, compile to
> MyGoober .class.  This is perfectly valid Java, of course, and so
> shouldn't be any problem for the Eclipse Java tools unless they assume the
> convention is being followed.
>
> 3) Is there some other (better) approach we should take?
>
> Thanks for any help or advice.