| Summary: | [Progress] IProgressConstants.ACTION_PROPERTY should be commands based | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Eclipse Project] Platform | Reporter: | Min Idzelis <min123> | ||||||||
| Component: | UI | Assignee: | Prakash Rangaraj <prakash> | ||||||||
| Status: | VERIFIED FIXED | QA Contact: | Prakash Rangaraj <prakash> | ||||||||
| Severity: | normal | ||||||||||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | phil.kursawe, pwebster, remy.suen, Tod_Creasey | ||||||||
| Version: | 3.3.1 | Keywords: | helpwanted | ||||||||
| Target Milestone: | 3.6 M3 | ||||||||||
| Hardware: | PC | ||||||||||
| OS: | Windows XP | ||||||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||
|
Description
Min Idzelis
Paul,
Would it be better to create a COMMAND_PROPERTY than to use the same constant?
(In reply to comment #2) > Would it be better to create a COMMAND_PROPERTY than to use the same > constant? I think that's a good idea. Since this is opt-in anyway, we would make the new API explicit. PW *** Bug 284453 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Created attachment 146431 [details]
Patch v01
Rough cut. Need some cleanup.
Created attachment 147924 [details]
Patch v02
Little better version and now with a test (finally :-))
I think it looks good (especially to include the test :-) The only thing I would consider is the object you are using as a command property. The action property is an IAction, should the command property be a ParameterizedCommand? If you don't accept parameterized commands you could never do a showView(ConsoleView), for example. PW Created attachment 148315 [details]
Patch v03
Looks like I attached a wrong file for Patch v02 :-(
Never mind. Here is v3 supporting ParameterizedCommands instead of Command ids as Paul suggested.
Patch v03 released to HEAD Verified in I20091027-0100 |