Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | Update the Progress Reporting article | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Eclipse Project] Platform | Reporter: | Stefan Xenos <sxenos> |
| Component: | Website | Assignee: | Stefan Xenos <sxenos> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | atrookey, eclipse.sprigogin, Lars.Vogel, wayne.beaton |
| Version: | 4.6 | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | PC | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| See Also: |
https://git.eclipse.org/r/71027 https://git.eclipse.org/c/www.eclipse.org/articles.git/commit/?id=81a5da245b4ec47b43011a22b72ecbb537d98ebc |
||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Bug Depends on: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 487372, 499658 | ||
|
Description
Stefan Xenos
Adding Wayne, not sure if the articles are still "maintained". Patches accepted. New Gerrit change created: https://git.eclipse.org/r/71027 I've attached an updated article. It's pretty much a rewrite. I think I only kept a couple paragraphs from the original. I was unsure what to do about attribution so I followed the same copyright and author conventions we use for source files (I included both contributors and updated the copyright notice using the same sort of convention we use in sources). Feedback and comments are welcome. Wayne, could I trouble you to take another look at this? I think it should be ready for submission. The content is completely different and I believe that the original still serves an existing community so I'd rather not replace it. Can you submit an new update that presents the article as a separate file. Maybe we can add a pointer in the old version to the new version as well (naturally, we can update the wiki with a direct pointer to the new (and old) version. (In reply to Wayne Beaton from comment #6) > The content is completely different and I believe that the original still > serves an existing community so I'd rather not replace it. The old article Shows now the "wrong" way. We should replace it, rather than keeping it around. This "lets keep outdated stuff" leads people to use outdated stuff. (In reply to Lars Vogel from comment #7) > The old article Shows now the "wrong" way. We should replace it, rather than > keeping it around. This "lets keep outdated stuff" leads people to use > outdated stuff. Is there a version of Eclipse for which the article shows the "right" way? (In reply to Wayne Beaton from comment #8) > (In reply to Lars Vogel from comment #7) > > The old article Shows now the "wrong" way. We should replace it, rather than > > keeping it around. This "lets keep outdated stuff" leads people to use > > outdated stuff. > > Is there a version of Eclipse for which the article shows the "right" way? Neon and part of it is relevant for older releases. > Is there a version of Eclipse for which the article shows the "right" way?
A lot of the content of that article was always wrong - or at least misleading. For example, it mentions that there are four states for a progress monitor (there are three), it says that done() can only be called once (the javadoc disagrees), most of the information about how cancellation works is wrong (cancellation isn't a fourth state of the monitor and the cancellation isn't triggered as a consequence of the job calling setCanceled).
All the stuff that the original article got correct has been included in the new article in the section on IProgressMonitor, but I've fixed the inaccuracies. Anyone wanting to support Eclipse 3.2 and earlier can use that section.
All of examples in the new article apply to Eclipse 3.3 and up, but - as I think I explained clearly in the article - anyone wanting to support Eclipse 3.3 to Eclipse 4.5 needs to replace the word "split" with the word "newChild".
Anyone wanting to support Eclipse 3.3 and up is far better off following the advice of the new article.
If we want to elaborate on supporting Eclipse 3.2 and earlier, I can add a section about that (and the use of SubProgressMonitor), but that is still far preferable than keeping the old article around since so much of the old article is incorrect.
Let me ask this: What versions of Eclipse do we care about supporting? My new article covers: 4.6 and 4.7: Very well. 3.3 to 4.5: Well, but I could elaborate more about newChild/split in the section on Eclipse versions. 3.2 and earlier: I cover all the stuff on IProgressMonitor, but if we care about these old versions I should probably talk about the use of SubProgressMonitor. If we think there is an Eclipse version that we both care about and that the old article did a better job of covering, let's fix the new article rather than keeping the old one around. Gerrit change https://git.eclipse.org/r/71027 was merged to [master]. Commit: http://git.eclipse.org/c/www.eclipse.org/articles.git/commit/?id=81a5da245b4ec47b43011a22b72ecbb537d98ebc I think that if we have 3.5+ covered, we're in incredibly good shape. Merged. Thank you so much, Wayne! ...and thank you to everyone who helped me edit this thing. FYI, the information about adjusting the examples for Eclipse 3.3 to 4.5 is still spread out throughout the article. If we get any questions about this I'd be happy to follow up with more explicit information in the "Eclipse Versions" section. |