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

Bug 367976

Summary: Part service: can we have only one implementation?
Product: [Eclipse Project] Platform Reporter: Oleg Besedin <ob1.eclipse>
Component: UIAssignee: Platform UI Triaged <platform-ui-triaged>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Oleg Besedin <ob1.eclipse>
Severity: normal    
Priority: P3 CC: emoffatt, pwebster, remy.suen
Version: 4.2   
Target Milestone: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: All   
Whiteboard:

Description Oleg Besedin CLA 2012-01-05 14:35:52 EST 
Currently we create multiple part services: one for the "application" (in the workbench context), one in each trimmed window. The contexts also get part service creation function and most part contexts will have a cached pointer to the containing window's part service. That by itself would be not perfect, but bearable. 

However, multiple part services interact with each other in strange ways thanks to active*/selection* changes. That provides puzzling effects including recursive calls and changes spilling into "other" part services.

I think we need to have single part service implementation residing at the application context. The services provided by the part service will be scoped "per application". (Currently they are scoped either "per window" or "per application" depending on where the implementation is taken from.)

The change will mean that multi-window JUnit tests we have would need to be removed or updated, but it should not affect how SDK works.
Comment 1 Oleg Besedin CLA 2012-01-05 14:38:16 EST 
(In reply to comment #0)
> The change will mean that multi-window JUnit tests we have would need to be
> removed or updated, but it should not affect how SDK works.

That is "multi-window JUnit tests" that test the part service.
Comment 2 Remy Suen CLA 2012-01-05 14:42:39 EST 
This matter has been discussed about in the past in bug 322428. Bug 322428 comment 6 and down in particular is of interest.
Comment 3 Oleg Besedin CLA 2012-01-05 15:06:57 EST 
(In reply to comment #2)
> This matter has been discussed about in the past in bug 322428. Bug 322428
> comment 6 and down in particular is of interest.

Thank you! I could not find that one.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 322428 ***