|
|
|
|
Re: Why does a bundle need to be activated to load an adapter factory? [message #735824 is a reply to message #698405] |
Wed, 12 October 2011 20:08 |
|
I've seen this issue posted several times but I still see no fix. The real world case is having a plugin-A with a declared AdapterFactory and plugin-B with a menu contribution based on "adapts" which fails unless A is started/active/loaded. We don't need any classes from A, the XML provides knowledge of whether the factory exists and that it can adapt one class to another - but for some reason this is ignored. This seems very similar to declaring a view and having it appear in the Show View dialog without starting/activating/loading the plugin that declares it.
Understandably if the "adapt" has a "test" child, classes will need to be loaded, similar to when a view is selected to be opened, classes are loaded.
The workaround we use in-house is (too) many of our plugins have "startup" extensions and are bloating the runtime just to present a menu contribution that may never get selected. Something's wrong here and needs to be fixed.
Can the "adapters" extension point mechanism be changed to treat its extensions the way "views" extensions are treated, i.e. make UI contributions without starting/activating/loading the plugin that declares them until that is needed?
Craig Foote
|
|
|
|
Re: Why does a bundle need to be activated to load an adapter factory? [message #736384 is a reply to message #736019] |
Fri, 14 October 2011 00:35 |
|
Thanks for replying Daniel. Your bug report has some interesting discussion and it's still open but, as you said, there doesn't appear to be any resources applied to it right now. I voted for the fix and maybe now others will too. I'd like to take a swipe at changing the code myself and proposing a patch but I fear it's beyond my experience level.
Craig
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03765 seconds