Eclipse Community Forums: ServerTools (WTP) » 1.0M9: Why is it required to provide org.eclipse.wst.sse.ui.adapterFactoryDescription for custom xml

Home » Language IDEs » ServerTools (WTP) » 1.0M9: Why is it required to provide org.eclipse.wst.sse.ui.adapterFactoryDescription for custom xml

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator

1.0M9: Why is it required to provide org.eclipse.wst.sse.ui.adapterFactoryDescription for custom xml [message #149660]

Tue, 29 November 2005 12:56

Max Rydahl Andersen

Messages: 233
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

Hi,

Trying to port to M9 these days and noticed that I now *have* to provide
a org.eclipse.wst.sse.ui.adapterFactoryDescription for my custom xml types.
If i don't the outline is empty.

This were not needed in M7 and I had the impression that
adapterFactoryDescription
were non-public API since I have to use internal API's to implement it -
such as:

import
org.eclipse.wst.sse.core.internal.ltk.modelhandler.IDocument TypeHandler;
import org.eclipse.wst.sse.core.internal.provisional.IStructuredMod el;

And why is IStructuredModel still internal ? ;)

Thanks
/max

Report message to a moderator

Re: 1.0M9: Why is it required to provide org.eclipse.wst.sse.ui.adapterFactoryDescription for custom [message #149864 is a reply to message #149660]

Tue, 29 November 2005 23:25

David Williams

Messages: 722
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 07:56:47 -0500, Max Rydahl Andersen <max.andersen@jb=
oss.com> wrote:

>And why is IStructuredModel still internal ?
>

We haven't made any of our "model" classes public API for the simple rea=
son we haven't had the
time or resources to make them API quality. As always planed, we'll impr=
ove our API incrementally,
as need and resource allow. Even though this means many adopters will ne=
ed to use non-API to
accomplish what they would like to do, we believe this is a more "open" =
statement of where
adopters might need to make future changes. The alternative, other than =
funding a much larger
team of contributors, would be to make nothing available until all was c=
ompletely ready ... and
I suspect most would not like that alternative either.

Report message to a moderator

Re: 1.0M9: Why is it required to provide org.eclipse.wst.sse.ui.adapterFactoryDescription for custom [message #149912 is a reply to message #149864]

Wed, 30 November 2005 09:59

Max Rydahl Andersen

Messages: 233
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

I understand and respect that you are evolving the API's, I were just
under the impression (again ;) that API'ing SSE were one of the goals
for WTP 1.0.

Regarding requirement of adapterFactoryDescription I just find it "curious"
that it is required to use internal API to make a public api (the
editorConfiguration)
work.

/max

> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 07:56:47 -0500, Max Rydahl Andersen
> <max.andersen@jboss.com> wrote:
>
>> And why is IStructuredModel still internal ?
>>
>
> We haven't made any of our "model" classes public API for the simple
> reason we haven't had the
> time or resources to make them API quality. As always planed, we'll
> improve our API incrementally,
> as need and resource allow. Even though this means many adopters will
> need to use non-API to
> accomplish what they would like to do, we believe this is a more "open"
> statement of where
> adopters might need to make future changes. The alternative, other than
> funding a much larger
> team of contributors, would be to make nothing available until all was
> completely ready ... and
> I suspect most would not like that alternative either.
>

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Report message to a moderator

Re: 1.0M9: Why is it required to provide org.eclipse.wst.sse.ui.adapterFactoryDescription for custom [message #149941 is a reply to message #149912]

Wed, 30 November 2005 13:06

Nitin Dahyabhai

Messages: 4435
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
> Regarding requirement of adapterFactoryDescription I just find it "curious"
> that it is required to use internal API to make a public api (the
> editorConfiguration)
> work.

Max, are you still using your own model handler class by chance?
The XML adapter factory provider requires that the model's model
handler be an instance of the XML model handler before it will add
the factories. This is the most likely reason I can find for it not
to work as-is.

I'm not sure why this would behave differently now, assuming that it
does.

--
- Nitin

_
Nitin Dahyabhai
Eclipse Web Tools Platform

Report message to a moderator

Re: 1.0M9: Why is it required to provide org.eclipse.wst.sse.ui.adapterFactoryDescription for custom [message #149970 is a reply to message #149912]

Wed, 30 November 2005 17:07

David Williams

Messages: 722
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 04:59:50 -0500, Max Rydahl Andersen <max.andersen@jb=
oss.com> wrote:

> I understand and respect that you are evolving the API's, I were just
> under the impression (again that API'ing SSE were one of the goals
> for WTP 1.0.
>

Yep, and I think we've made a lot of progress. A lot of the effort for 1=
..0 was
removing the need for API :) that is, we do less "special" things that w=
ere
less than "base like". e.g. should be no need to subclass StructuredTex=
tEditor
and we now use the base provided Selection Services, instead of our own =
custom
ViewerSelectionManager.

> Regarding requirement of adapterFactoryDescription I just find it "cur=
ious"
> that it is required to use internal API to make a public api (the edit=
orConfiguration)
> work.

Well, we might have made some mistakes, but it might just be we need mor=
e enhancement requests. :)
Its my thought you don't NEED to use adapterFactoryDescription to use ed=
itorConfiguration.
But, yes, perhaps to practically provide new sub types of xml content ty=
pes you do. If not already
covered by your exisiting bug reports feel free to detail what you are d=
oing in bug report and
1) we'll make every attempt not to break internal usage as we move forwa=
rd, or 2) provide
clear migration paths.

Report message to a moderator

Re: 1.0M9: Why is it required to provide org.eclipse.wst.sse.ui.adapterFactoryDescription for custom [message #150060 is a reply to message #149941]

Wed, 30 November 2005 21:54

Max Rydahl Andersen

Messages: 233
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:06:51 +0100, Nitin Dahyabhai <nitind@us.ibm.com>
wrote:

> Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
>> Regarding requirement of adapterFactoryDescription I just find it
>> "curious"
>> that it is required to use internal API to make a public api (the
>> editorConfiguration)
>> work.
>
> Max, are you still using your own model handler class by chance? The XML
> adapter factory provider requires that the model's model handler be an
> instance of the XML model handler before it will add the factories.
> This is the most likely reason I can find for it not to work as-is.
>
> I'm not sure why this would behave differently now, assuming that it
> does.

yes i have my own modelhandler (just as the cheatsheet example still has
it)
and it is a subclass of the xmlmodel handler like anything else.

Do I not need a model handler class anymore ?

/max

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic:	How to add a custom taglib to a project?
Next Topic:	Save Option from Integrated Browser

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

]

Current Time: Thu Apr 25 01:44:26 GMT 2024

.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Breadcrumbs

Sign up to our Newsletter