Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.

Bug 10029

Summary:	RFE: tree view for java packages in Java browsing view [package explorer] [browsing]
Product:	[Eclipse Project] JDT	Reporter:	David Buttler <buttler1>
Component:	UI	Assignee:	Erich Gamma <erich_gamma>
Status:	RESOLVED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:
Severity:	enhancement
Priority:	P3	CC:	mlq.eclipse, public, udekel
Version:	2.0	Keywords:	helpwanted
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	PC
OS:	Windows 2000
Whiteboard:

Description David Buttler

2002-02-20 19:28:28 EST

It would be really nice to have a tree view of packages and of classes in the 
java browsing view. I thought this was one of the coolest features of the VAJ 
view -- it made it easy to hide things that wasn't working on so I could focus 
in on the context I was involved with.

Any idea how difficult this would be to implement?

Comment 1 Erich Gamma

2002-03-11 10:18:19 EST

By tree view you mean showing

org.eclipse.jdt

as:
 
org
    eclipse
        jdt

This is doable but we don't plan to do it for 2.0.

Comment 2 David Buttler

2002-03-11 10:30:35 EST

I understand that this may not be a top priority for 2.0

Out of curiosity, is it more difficult than replacing a list view with a tree view ?
Obviously there is some more interesting things going on since each package
would have to be split on the "." and either shadow packages added for
non-existant packages or some nodes would be collapsed

(e.g. if there was the package org.eclispe.jdt, the packages org and org.eclipse
may not have any classes in them.  The tree view would either be as indicated above
- org
|--- eclipse
   |--- jdt
The alternative would be to collapse the tree for these packages, so it would
look like the following:
- org.eclipse.jdt
but if another package were added (org.eclipse.jdt.core) it would look like:
- org.eclipse.jdt
|--- core


VAJ for java did it the first way.  Packages that didn't exist were grayed out.

Comment 3 Jon Skeet

2002-07-23 09:28:27 EDT

This is a duplicate of bug 6454, I believe.

Jon

Comment 4 Dirk Baeumer

2002-07-26 08:59:44 EDT

*** Bug 21873 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 5 Dirk Baeumer

2002-07-29 10:37:03 EDT

*** Bug 21285 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 6 Dani Megert

2002-08-19 10:03:41 EDT

reopen to mark as duplicate

Comment 7 Dani Megert

2002-08-19 10:04:32 EDT


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 6454 ***