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

Bug 106689

Summary: [EditorMgmt] closing a second editor view to a dirty file ask for saving that file
Product: [Eclipse Project] Platform Reporter: Michael Schneider <m_schnei>
Component: UIAssignee: Douglas Pollock <douglas.pollock>
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE QA Contact:
Severity: normal    
Priority: P3 CC: AndrewBachmann, bokowski, daniel_megert, n.a.edgar
Version: 3.1   
Target Milestone: ---   
Hardware: PC   
OS: All   
Whiteboard:

Description Michael Schneider CLA 2005-08-10 15:55:51 EDT 
In the editor view one can request a 'New Editor'
in the context menu of the editor's tab. The result
is a second view to the same text file, which I
find sometimes rather useful.

Now imagine that I have an open file, which
has benn modified and not yet saved back (dirty).
If you only have one editor view to this file,
closing the editor must of course ask for saving
that file in order to persist information.

But if one has a second editor view open (by means
of the "New Editor" feature), it should be possible
to just close one of the both views, without being
asked for saving. Reason: Because the now closing
editor acts just as a view to the file, and closing
it should not affect the state of that file in any
way.

Currently, this is not so. You are asked to save a file
while closing a second view. IMO this behaviour should 
be changed in future releases (but prio is low, of course).
Comment 1 Dirk Baeumer CLA 2005-08-11 05:18:39 EDT 
Don't know if this is Platform/Text or Platform/UI. Moving to Text first.
Comment 2 Dani Megert CLA 2005-08-11 05:33:29 EDT 
Moving to Platform UI for comment. The problem here is that it's not certain
that those two editors work on a shared model. This would need new API which
allows to ask the editor(input) whether it is shared.
Comment 3 Andrew Bachmann CLA 2006-04-19 21:05:44 EDT 
this issue appears to be related to:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=131068
Comment 4 Boris Bokowski CLA 2006-04-19 22:55:51 EDT 
Yes indeed, this is a duplicate of bug 131068. Marking the older bug as a dupe of the newer bug because the newer has a patch, and captures the current state of the discussion.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 131068 ***