| XMLBuddy and M5 [message #115386] |
Sat, 02 July 2005 00:36  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
They seem to co-exist fairly well (assuming that xsd editor exception
wasn't caused by a conflict - it didn't look like it). I installed WST
by unzipping in a clean 3.1 final, then added XMLBuddy Pro from an
internal update site. It's kind of random which editors get to be the
default - XMLBuddy for *.xml, WST for *.xsd and *.dtd - but other than
that, no problems so far.
Bob Foster
http://xmlbuddy.com/
|
|
|
| Re: XMLBuddy and M5 [message #115424 is a reply to message #115386] |
Sat, 02 July 2005 15:43  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
I spoke too soon. :( I opened an XML file in WST editor. Seemed to be
fine. Closed and reopened with XMLBuddy. Fine. Closed and reopened with
WST editor. No syntax coloring.
Bob
Bob Foster wrote:
> They seem to co-exist fairly well (assuming that xsd editor exception
> wasn't caused by a conflict - it didn't look like it). I installed WST
> by unzipping in a clean 3.1 final, then added XMLBuddy Pro from an
> internal update site. It's kind of random which editors get to be the
> default - XMLBuddy for *.xml, WST for *.xsd and *.dtd - but other than
> that, no problems so far.
>
> Bob Foster
> http://xmlbuddy.com/
|
|
|
| Re: XMLBuddy and M5 [message #115457 is a reply to message #115424] |
Sat, 02 July 2005 16:37 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
Internally, lots of exceptions thrown as wst editor tried to call my
partitioner.
Bob
Bob Foster wrote:
> I spoke too soon. :( I opened an XML file in WST editor. Seemed to be
> fine. Closed and reopened with XMLBuddy. Fine. Closed and reopened with
> WST editor. No syntax coloring.
>
> Bob
>
> Bob Foster wrote:
>
>> They seem to co-exist fairly well (assuming that xsd editor exception
>> wasn't caused by a conflict - it didn't look like it). I installed WST
>> by unzipping in a clean 3.1 final, then added XMLBuddy Pro from an
>> internal update site. It's kind of random which editors get to be the
>> default - XMLBuddy for *.xml, WST for *.xsd and *.dtd - but other than
>> that, no problems so far.
>>
>> Bob Foster
>> http://xmlbuddy.com/
|
|
|
|
| Re: XMLBuddy and M5 [message #117078 is a reply to message #116974] |
Thu, 07 July 2005 00:39 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
Sure. The reason is you're still using the default partitioner. When
XMLBuddy starts, if it doesn't find its partitioner in a document, it
replaces it.
Yes to "neutral" XML.
The only real solution that will keep us out of each other's hair is to
stop using the default partitioner. This is just a bug waiting to
happen. I have detailed the reasons I haven't done it already. What are
yours? ;-}
Bob
David Williams wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 11:43:13 -0400, Bob Foster <bob@objfac.com> wrote:
>
>> I spoke too soon. :( I opened an XML file in WST editor. Seemed to be
>> fine. Closed and reopened with XMLBuddy. Fine. Closed and reopened with
>> WST editor. No syntax coloring.
>>
>
> Bob, I tried re-creating a conflict with our WTP M5 editors and "version
> 2 based editors"
> by using the sample XML editor the PDE will build as a sample ... but,
> they seem to
> co-exist just fine. Do you have any insight into why that editor might
> work but yours
> would not?
>
> Also, a bugzilla with the logs/config attached would be helpful.
>
> Seems especially odd your observed bugs would be order dependendent.
> I assume you're using a "neutral" XML file? Not one like web.xml (which is
> access by several parts of WTP, at different times)?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: XMLBuddy and M5 [message #117482 is a reply to message #117078] |
Thu, 07 July 2005 15:03 |
 David Williams
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 20:39:25 -0400, Bob Foster <bob@objfac.com> wrote:
> What are
> yours? ;-}
Not sure ... in fact, I initially discounted some of this thread because I thought for
we were not using it any longer (I remember removing it) but now that I look at it, seems
we are setting it to "NullPartioner" in some cases. I suspect we were finding NPE's if not set to something,
so put in this "catch all" ... but reading the API spec's, it sounds like the old getPartioner() * is * allowed to return null, which I'm guessing, is what you are suggesting we do? And if so, we'll look into that this week, and see if we can re-create any problems doing so. If not, we'll simply stop doing and
humbling request you recheck.
When you say you check add your partioner if not there, I assume you mean by finding getPartioner returns null, then you set with setPartioner(partioner)? This would work for exactly two conflicts, right? Ours and yours but no other 2.1 based editors following same scheme?
I've opened Bug 103022 (XML Editor conflicts with 2.1 based editors).
Please follow that, if interested, and we can document issues there.
Thanks for clarifying.
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.01975 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
