Hi
I agree with Dan, I’m not
comfortable with the idea of introduction such a change so late in the release
timeframe. We will need to be very careful to guarantee that the user
workspace won’t be broken fro RC1 to RCx after this change (we’ll have to work
on the migratory classes again).
From my perspective, I
believe this issue is not a blocker must-fix issue as pointed
by Craig; users are living with it for quite some time. I think we could
document it as a Know issue and fix in a 1.1 release when enhancing the
Device/SDK infrastructure.
Diego
From:
dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Dan
Murphy
Sent: Tuesday, May 26,
2009 12:42 PM
To: Mobile Tools
for The Java Platform mailing list
Subject: Re: [dsdp-mtj-dev] Issue with
device rename
As a user, I'd prefer not
to have an editor that doesn't open in 1.0, but it's not a trivial fix and I
appreciate it's rather late to start introducing too much new code... I'm also
not sure how many people do rename the device / group in real
life.
2009/5/26 Craig Setera <craigjunk@xxxxxxxxxx>
A couple of comments
here...
1) There *is* a getIdentifier on device objects now. This
is something that I knew we needed and I added in the previous patch. It
currently just returns the name, but changing that should not affect the
API.
2) This problem has existed since EclipseME days. People have
lived with it for quite some time. While it isn't ideal, I'm also not convinced
that it is a blocker must-fix issue this late in the game.
What are the
thoughts on what would need to change in the API to make this work? There
is the concept of a listener. Is the thinking that there would be an
addListener type method on IDevice?
Craig
On 5/26/09 9:36 AM, Paula Gustavo-WGP010 wrote:
Hi,
Currently there are a couple of
bugs related to renaming a device. The problem is that now there are no
listeners that notify MTJ when a device is renamed on the registry. This
causes problems like the ones related at 277078 and 276084. In order to solve them, it will probably be required
to do changes both on the API and MTJ metadata. And we would also need to add
some migrations to import MTJ v0.9.x projects.
I
would like to get a feedback from the rest of the list about this issue. Can
we live with it in a 1.0 or is this a must fix? If this is a must, we will
need help to review the change and make sure we don’t’ break
anything.
J
gep
_______________________________________________
dsdp-mtj-dev mailing list
dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev
_______________________________________________
dsdp-mtj-dev
mailing list
dsdp-mtj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-mtj-dev
