Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.
Bug 339623 - IServer start/stop methods which accept an IOperationListener have no way to pass an IProgressMonitor
Summary: IServer start/stop methods which accept an IOperationListener have no way to ...
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: WTP ServerTools
Classification: WebTools
Component: wst.server (show other bugs)
Version: 3.2   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 enhancement (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: Angel Vera CLA
QA Contact: Angel Vera CLA
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-03-10 19:02 EST by Troy Bishop CLA
Modified: 2011-05-05 13:48 EDT (History)
0 users

See Also:

Attachments
possible patch (4.18 KB, patch)
2011-03-11 10:35 EST, Troy Bishop CLA 		no flags Details | Diff
View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Troy Bishop CLA 2011-03-10 19:02:32 EST 
Build Identifier: 

The methods IServer#start(String, IOperationListener) and IServer#stop(boolean, IOperationListener) do not have a mechanism to pass an IProgressMonitor.  As a result, it is not possible to get monitor feedback for the various actions that are happening.

It would be nice to have this corrected in the 3.2.4 release, if possible.  I understand that changing the interface is not possible in a maintenance release but it would be nice if the corresponding Server object could be updated with this API and then changed in the next release (i.e. 3.3).

This is beneficial for myself as I contribute Ant tasks to an adopter product and without this feedback it does not look like the task is really doing anything while it waits for the server to start (or server can take a bit of time to start).

I will attach a patch that can be used for the current 3.2.4 release.

Reproducible: Always
Comment 1 Troy Bishop CLA 2011-03-11 10:35:41 EST 
Created attachment 190994 [details]
possible patch
Comment 2 Angel Vera CLA 2011-05-05 13:48:32 EDT 
Although your suggested patch sounds interesting, this would require a new API and we are pass the deadline. From previous conversation in email, it sounds like this is not of interested to your team at this time, so perhaps we can put it on the back burner until the needs arises again, or we have more time to work on it.