Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.
Bug 335765 - We should not depend on E4XMIResource in our internal code
Summary: We should not depend on E4XMIResource in our internal code
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Platform
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: UI (show other bugs)
Version: 4.1   Edit
Hardware: PC Mac OS X - Carbon (unsup.)
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: Platform UI Triaged CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard: stalebug
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-01-29 09:14 EST by Thomas Schindl CLA
Modified: 2019-11-27 07:48 EST (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments
patch (7.91 KB, patch)
2011-01-29 09:14 EST, Thomas Schindl CLA
no flags Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Thomas Schindl CLA 2011-01-29 09:14:06 EST
Created attachment 187906 [details]
patch

We are currently blindly casting at various position to E4XMIResource which makes it impossible to load the workbench from another source.

I think we should instead define a small SPI named IModelResource which holds the important methods we need.
Comment 1 Remy Suen CLA 2011-01-31 10:30:56 EST
Skimmed the patch. I agree with the idea. Will take a closer look later this week. Thanks, Tom.
Comment 2 Remy Suen CLA 2011-02-02 08:35:13 EST
I'm not sure if the parameter should be named 'local'. Internally in the E4XMIResource implementation we think of it as an "internal" id. The words "internal" and "local" have different connotations. To me "local" gives the impression that it is "shallow" and "temporary" whereas "internal" gives me the impression that it's "deep" and "permanent".

Either the implementation's names should be changed or the interface needs to change its names.
Comment 3 Thomas Schindl CLA 2011-08-25 05:20:37 EDT
Can we take a look at this one for 4.2?
Comment 4 Remy Suen CLA 2011-08-25 07:54:51 EDT
(In reply to comment #3)
> Can we take a look at this one for 4.2?

Tom, I think we had an offline conversation about comment 2 but I don't remember what we decided...if anything?
Comment 5 Lars Vogel CLA 2019-11-27 07:48:08 EST
This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got
resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some
reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet.

If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it.
The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you
still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is
(for whatever reason) no longer relevant.

If the bug is still relevant, please remove the stalebug whiteboard tag.