Community
Participate
Working Groups
The discovery UI doesn't offer an EP which allows contribution for specific service handling.
This bug supports CQ #2038 (https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2038)
I don't understand what is meant by 'service handling'. There is now the extension point org.eclipse.ecf.discovery.ui.serviceAccessHandler, which allows handlers to be associated with given services that are discovered and shown in UI. Do you mean some other notion of EP for 'service handling'? The existing extension point should also certainly be reviewed and if necessary/appropriate changed/generalized as well. So we can use this bug for that if serviceAccessHandler is close to what you have/had in mind for this bug.
Hi Scott, I've mainly created this bug to support the CQ for my discovery view contribution. It doesn't correspond to the existing discovery UI. I haven't had a look at org.eclipse.ecf.discovery.ui.serviceAccessHandler yet and it indeed sounds like it fixes this bug. But CQ #2038 goes beyond showing a handler for a given IServiceType. It allows to extend the Tree with your own TreeItems.
(In reply to comment #3) > Hi Scott, > > I've mainly created this bug to support the CQ for my discovery view > contribution. It doesn't correspond to the existing discovery UI. I haven't had > a look at org.eclipse.ecf.discovery.ui.serviceAccessHandler yet and it indeed > sounds like it fixes this bug. But CQ #2038 goes beyond showing a handler for a > given IServiceType. It allows to extend the Tree with your own TreeItems. > OK, sounds good. Actually, I would recommend that we chat/discuss serviceAccessHandler at some point, as I'm not completely satisfied with it (i.e. perhaps it could be made better/clearer)...and if you add an EP to the new discovery UI work it would be good to do something better...but perhaps along the same lines. BTW, after reading my commments #2 above, I realized that they might have come across as a little terse. If so, my apologies...I was just on my way out the door.
(In reply to comment #4) > OK, sounds good. Actually, I would recommend that we chat/discuss > serviceAccessHandler at some point, as I'm not completely satisfied with it > (i.e. perhaps it could be made better/clearer)...and if you add an EP to the > new discovery UI work it would be good to do something better...but perhaps > along the same lines. OK, what about during next week's ECF conference call? > BTW, after reading my commments #2 above, I realized that they might have come > across as a little terse. If so, my apologies...I was just on my way out the > door. Don't worry, no offence taken.
Moved CQ 2038 (http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2038) to ECF incubation. Keep in mind that this requires EMF >= 2.3.
Fixed in HEAD
