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

Bug 344319

Summary:	[diagram] Image specification for diagram parts inconsistent with the rest of sdef
Product:	z_Archived	Reporter:	Konstantin Komissarchik <konstantin>
Component:	Sapphire	Assignee:	Ling Hao <ling.hao>
Status:	CLOSED FIXED	QA Contact:
Severity:	major
Priority:	P3	CC:	gregory.amerson, ling.hao, shenxue.zhou
Version:	unspecified
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	All
Whiteboard:

Description Konstantin Komissarchik

2011-04-29 13:18:18 EDT

The way that images are specified in diagram sdef language exposes Graphiti semantics. This will not do. Images should be specified in the manner consistent with the rest of sdef. The current approach is a value property that returns a Function that returns ImageData object. Images should be referenced at the point of use, rather than defined separately and then referenced by id.

Comment 1 Konstantin Komissarchik

2011-04-29 13:19:57 EDT

Setting the target to 0.3 as this will be a significant language change, it would be good to do that before shipping the 0.3 release. If this proves to be impossible with Graphiti in the way, we can defer this to the 0.4 release to be done concurrently with removing Graphiti dependency.

Comment 2 Konstantin Komissarchik

2011-11-02 22:09:59 EDT

Bulk deferral of diagram-related items to the 0.5 release.

Comment 3 Ling Hao

2012-02-09 16:46:18 EST

Image specifications are now consistent with the rest of the sdef.

Comment 4 Greg Amerson

2012-02-14 22:07:31 EST

Question regarding this change.  Before we could use expressions in the <id> element to resolve which image to load.  How do we get this same feature now?

Comment 5 Greg Amerson

2012-02-14 22:28:29 EST

OK, answered my own question by just looking at IDiagramNodeImageDef I can just now return use an expression in the <path> element.

Comment 6 Shenxue Zhou

2012-06-01 18:16:05 EDT

Verified the fix. Closing.

Comment 7 Konstantin Komissarchik

2012-06-01 18:22:07 EDT

Referencing Comment #3, am I correct in assuming that this was fixed by Ling. If so, the Assigned To field should be updated accordingly. If not, someone else besides Shenxue will need to perform the verification.

Comment 8 Shenxue Zhou

2012-06-01 18:35:16 EDT

(In reply to comment #7)
> Referencing Comment #3, am I correct in assuming that this was fixed by Ling.
> If so, the Assigned To field should be updated accordingly. If not, someone
> else besides Shenxue will need to perform the verification.

Yes it's fixed by Ling. I wasn't paying attention to the assigned to field. Fixed now.