|
| Re: o.e.jdt.core.IWorkingCopy.commit depricated but no alternative documented [message #236220 is a reply to message #236212] |
Thu, 21 September 2006 22:03   |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: richkulp.us.NO_SPAM.ibm.com
IWorkingCopy itself is deprecated. You shouldn't be using it. You should
be using ICompilationUnit.
An ICompilationUnit can become a working copy, this is through the
becomeWorkingCopy method on it. Then it can be treated just like the old
working copy concept, and then can finally be commited. Then the
ICompilationUnit is now marked as the primary copy.
Michael Giroux wrote:
> Javadocs for org.eclipse.jdt.core.IWorkingCopy.commit() indicate the method
> is depricated, but do not indicate what the alternative is.
>
> Should I file a bug report on this?
>
> FWIW, destroy() is in the same boat.
>
> Michael Giroux.
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: o.e.jdt.core.IWorkingCopy.commit depricated but no alternative documented [message #236440 is a reply to message #236256] |
Tue, 26 September 2006 13:49 |
 Frederic Fusier
Messages: 147
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Problem is not in ICompilationUnit's javadoc comments, but in
CompilationUnit ones. But, you spotted a real problem!
There are also some other places where these invalid references to
IWorkingCopy are done in javadoc comments: SourceType and BinaryType.
Please open a bug against JDT/Core component and I'll fix it ASAP.
Thanks
Michael Giroux wrote:
> FWIW, I am using the ICompilationUnit.commitWorkingCopy.
>
> My post has to do w/ the javadocs for IWorkingCopy. The issue is that the
> javadocs for ICompilationUnit contain links to methods inherited from
> IWorkingCopy. Clicking on any of the methods (commit, destroy, ..) get you
> directly to the method javadoc which only says depricated. It does not
> refer you to ICompilationUnit#commitWorkingCopy(...).
>
> Since you enter the javadocs directly at the method you do not see the
> global notice at the top of IWorkingCopy that it is depricated and should
> use ICompilationUnit. Given the sheer magnitude of the overall API and the
> fact that I managed to stumble into commit() before I found
> commitWorkingCopy, it seemed to me that informing the reader that
> ICompilationUnit#commitWorkingCopy should be used would be a useful
> addition.
>
> Michael
>
> "Philippe Mulet" <philippe_mulet@fr.ibm.com> wrote in message
> news:ef09bb$r5f$1@utils.eclipse.org...
>> In fact, this method did not get specifically deprecated, but rather the
>> entire IWorkingCopy interface for release 3.1.
>>
>> The idea is that IWorkingCopy functionalities got merged into
>> ICompilationUnit. So use ICompilationUnit#commitWorkingCopy(...) instead.
>>
>> See also:
>> http://help.eclipse.org/help32/topic/org.eclipse.jdt.doc.isv /guide/jdt_api_manip.htm
>>
>>> Javadocs for org.eclipse.jdt.core.IWorkingCopy.commit() indicate the
>>> method is depricated, but do not indicate what the alternative is.
>>>
>>> Should I file a bug report on this?
>>>
>>> FWIW, destroy() is in the same boat.
>>>
>>> Michael Giroux.
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: o.e.jdt.core.IWorkingCopy.commit depricated but no alternative documented [message #236500 is a reply to message #236440] |
Wed, 27 September 2006 11:21 |
Frederic Fusier
Messages: 147
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
I opened bug https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=158951 as I
needed bug ID to follow-up work on this item...
Frederic Fusier wrote:
> Problem is not in ICompilationUnit's javadoc comments, but in
> CompilationUnit ones. But, you spotted a real problem!
>
> There are also some other places where these invalid references to
> IWorkingCopy are done in javadoc comments: SourceType and BinaryType.
>
> Please open a bug against JDT/Core component and I'll fix it ASAP.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Michael Giroux wrote:
>> FWIW, I am using the ICompilationUnit.commitWorkingCopy.
>>
>> My post has to do w/ the javadocs for IWorkingCopy. The issue is that
>> the javadocs for ICompilationUnit contain links to methods inherited
>> from IWorkingCopy. Clicking on any of the methods (commit, destroy,
>> ..) get you directly to the method javadoc which only says
>> depricated. It does not refer you to
>> ICompilationUnit#commitWorkingCopy(...).
>>
>> Since you enter the javadocs directly at the method you do not see the
>> global notice at the top of IWorkingCopy that it is depricated and
>> should use ICompilationUnit. Given the sheer magnitude of the overall
>> API and the fact that I managed to stumble into commit() before I
>> found commitWorkingCopy, it seemed to me that informing the reader
>> that ICompilationUnit#commitWorkingCopy should be used would be a
>> useful addition.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> "Philippe Mulet" <philippe_mulet@fr.ibm.com> wrote in message
>> news:ef09bb$r5f$1@utils.eclipse.org...
>>> In fact, this method did not get specifically deprecated, but rather
>>> the entire IWorkingCopy interface for release 3.1.
>>>
>>> The idea is that IWorkingCopy functionalities got merged into
>>> ICompilationUnit. So use ICompilationUnit#commitWorkingCopy(...)
>>> instead.
>>>
>>> See also:
>>> http://help.eclipse.org/help32/topic/org.eclipse.jdt.doc.isv /guide/jdt_api_manip.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>> Javadocs for org.eclipse.jdt.core.IWorkingCopy.commit() indicate the
>>>> method is depricated, but do not indicate what the alternative is.
>>>>
>>>> Should I file a bug report on this?
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, destroy() is in the same boat.
>>>>
>>>> Michael Giroux.
>>
>>
|
|
|
| Re: o.e.jdt.core.IWorkingCopy.commit depricated but no alternative documented [message #237208 is a reply to message #236500] |
Mon, 09 October 2006 14:55 |
Michael Giroux
Messages: 287
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Frederic,
Thanks for opening the bug and sorry for not getting to this myself. I was
in a training session and was not monitoring the newsgroup.
Michael Giroux
"Frederic Fusier" <frederic_fusier@fr.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:efdmrk$n1v$1@utils.eclipse.org...
>I opened bug https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=158951 as I
>needed bug ID to follow-up work on this item...
>
> Frederic Fusier wrote:
>> Problem is not in ICompilationUnit's javadoc comments, but in
>> CompilationUnit ones. But, you spotted a real problem!
>>
>> There are also some other places where these invalid references to
>> IWorkingCopy are done in javadoc comments: SourceType and BinaryType.
>>
>> Please open a bug against JDT/Core component and I'll fix it ASAP.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> Michael Giroux wrote:
>>> FWIW, I am using the ICompilationUnit.commitWorkingCopy.
>>>
>>> My post has to do w/ the javadocs for IWorkingCopy. The issue is that
>>> the javadocs for ICompilationUnit contain links to methods inherited
>>> from IWorkingCopy. Clicking on any of the methods (commit, destroy, ..)
>>> get you directly to the method javadoc which only says depricated. It
>>> does not refer you to ICompilationUnit#commitWorkingCopy(...).
>>>
>>> Since you enter the javadocs directly at the method you do not see the
>>> global notice at the top of IWorkingCopy that it is depricated and
>>> should use ICompilationUnit. Given the sheer magnitude of the overall
>>> API and the fact that I managed to stumble into commit() before I found
>>> commitWorkingCopy, it seemed to me that informing the reader that
>>> ICompilationUnit#commitWorkingCopy should be used would be a useful
>>> addition.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> "Philippe Mulet" <philippe_mulet@fr.ibm.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ef09bb$r5f$1@utils.eclipse.org...
>>>> In fact, this method did not get specifically deprecated, but rather
>>>> the entire IWorkingCopy interface for release 3.1.
>>>>
>>>> The idea is that IWorkingCopy functionalities got merged into
>>>> ICompilationUnit. So use ICompilationUnit#commitWorkingCopy(...)
>>>> instead.
>>>>
>>>> See also:
>>>> http://help.eclipse.org/help32/topic/org.eclipse.jdt.doc.isv /guide/jdt_api_manip.htm
>>>>
>>>>> Javadocs for org.eclipse.jdt.core.IWorkingCopy.commit() indicate the
>>>>> method is depricated, but do not indicate what the alternative is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should I file a bug report on this?
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW, destroy() is in the same boat.
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael Giroux.
>>>
>>>
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02195 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
