Re: [wtp-dev] XML/SSE improvements

["Max Rydahl Andersen" <max.andersen@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:15:21 +0100, David M Williams  
<david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > Don't have to much free cycles to burn on it.
> yeah, things are rough all over
> but, remember, open source is not free ...
> its takes a community, so the more you invest,
> the more you'll get out of it.

I know (see my signature ;)
..but I burned *alot* of cycles on coming to WTP 0.7 so have
to choose my battles with care with respect to WTP 1.0.

> > I surely
> > hope I can still provide my own code completion support for the xml
> You probably can ... please see our viewer configuration extension point
> and see if it suits your needs.

good ;)

> I'd like to say we'll have time to re-introduce "constrained mode"
> for content assist, but ... I'd say only 40% likely for 1.0.

Let me know if there is something I can do to increate that %.

/max

> "Max Rydahl Andersen" <max.andersen@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 10/31/2005 10:54 AM
> Please respond to
> "General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."
>
>
> To
> "General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."
> <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: [wtp-dev] XML/SSE improvements
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 16:40:04 +0100, David M Williams
> <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Newsgroup would be better ... but for you Max, :)  I'll address some of
> > your question here.
>
> Thanks ;)
>
> > If I was you, I would not change your "towards production I-builds" yet,
> > if that's what you meant ...
> > when M9 is declared would be a better time.
>
> ok - i'll wait for M9. Don't have to much free cycles to burn on it.
>
> > For example, StructuredXMLEditor doesn't exist any more ... I assume you
> > meant
> > StructuredTextEditor ... but, read the javadoc closely ... "not intended
> > to
> > be subclassed". If we can get wsdlTextEditor and xsdTextEditor to
> > continue
>
> yes, I meant StructuredTextEditor.
>
> > The "content assist extension points" will not be in 1.0. We'll be
> > (looking at) following the platform's lead in this area (and they
> > are planning to "push down" content assist participants for 3.2.).
>
> If you don't want to allow that then may I suggest to please at
> least make and optionfor the current completion to only suggest
> valid suggestions. The current support is more "in-the-way" than
> helpfull since you need to know the DTD more or less by heart to be
> effective with it.
>
> You say "content assist extension points" will not be in 1.0, I surely
> hope I can still provide my own code completion support for the xml
> so I can provide value completion for stuff that is not expressable via
> DTD/schema.
>
> /max
>
>
> > "Max Rydahl Andersen" <max.andersen@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > 10/31/2005 03:34 AM
> > Please respond to
> > "General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues."
> >
> >
> > To
> > wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > cc
> >
> > Subject
> > [wtp-dev] XML/SSE improvements
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > (Not sure if this is best in the newsgroup or here, but just kick me if
> > its better for the newsgroup)
> >
> > I'm in the grey zone at the moment since I have to figure out when I
> want
> > to move
> > my plugin code from WTP 0.7 to WTP 1.0.
> >
> > As it stands I can see that the StructuredXMLEditor's api have been made
> > more public and that is good.
> > The question is - is that API considered stable at the moment ? Mainly
> if
> > the extension points name
> > and semantics are in place ? (api changes are easy to catch by the
> > compiler, but the xml in plugin.xml does
> > not complain if the extension point doesnt exist so damn hard to track
> > down ;)
> >
> > Another thing is the quality of the code completion in XML (see
> > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=89811)
> > which basically makes it very hard to create a valid xml file when
> > writing
> > the code by hand; and that does not
> > need to be the case but as far as I can see in the WTP code I can't
> > easily
> > customize the code completion rules
> > for XML yet. e.g. I need to order the inserts by relevance (or even
> > remove
> > non-valid xml).
> >
> > My question is if work have been done in this area with respect to WTP
> > 1.0
> > so I can actually get a real benefit
> >  from upgrading to WTP 1.0 ? (I don't need all the functionallity, just
> > the
> > possibility to order the proposals
> > by validity and add required attributes/tag automatically to the
> inserted
> > text - and hopefully without using
> > internal API)
> >
> > thanks



--
--
Max Rydahl Andersen
callto://max.rydahl.andersen

Hibernate
max@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://hibernate.org

JBoss Inc
max.andersen@xxxxxxxxx