Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.
Bug 362808 - webEditingPlugin using editor code
Summary: webEditingPlugin using editor code
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Orion
Classification: ECD
Component: Editor (show other bugs)
Version: 0.3   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows 7
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: Project Inbox CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
: 349703 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-11-03 11:29 EDT by Mark Macdonald CLA
Modified: 2015-05-05 16:00 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Mark Macdonald CLA 2011-11-03 11:29:13 EDT
The webEditingPlugin is reaching into the editor code to get CSS content assist and HTML highlighting. These are basically sample implementations of generic APIs that it wraps up as services.

Should package these samples in a better place (outside the editor code, maybe  examples/editor) so they can be reused sensibly.
Comment 1 Felipe Heidrich CLA 2011-11-10 10:00:44 EST
Right now core components depend on the editor. Editor does not depend on core (except by a few examples, but that could be modified).

So I would say that having webEditingPlugin inside core and reaching in the editor is better than the other way around.

It is funny that the editor bundle is more "core" than the core bundle. But that is due to the way the core bundle is organized. It would look better if the core was divided so that core only really includes the core bits (like requirejs, services, registry, etc) without any dependencies. The rest of the stuff that is there should be moved to a ui bundle or similar.

Thought ?
Comment 2 Susan McCourt CLA 2011-11-10 10:12:12 EST
(In reply to comment #1)
> It would look better if
> the core was divided so that core only really includes the core bits (like
> requirejs, services, registry, etc) without any dependencies. The rest of the
> stuff that is there should be moved to a ui bundle or similar.

There is similar discussion in bug 361487
Comment 3 John Arthorne CLA 2012-01-11 16:14:12 EST
I don't think the shape of what goes into which OSGi bundle is all that important at this stage. People consuming our scripts are just going to copy them from whatever directory we put them in, and they will assemble them together in perhaps a completely different shape. Neither of the OSGi bundles (core, editor, git) have any dependency on each other because OSGi doesn't capture JS dependencies. So basically what we are discussing is should the script go in one directory or another... 

Anyway, in the end we probably do want to put the scripts used by plugins separate from the "core" scripts that aren't coming from plugins. That's what I was starting to do with webEditingPlugin by creating a separate directory for its scripts. I don't really care which OSGi bundle we put those scripts in but I do think the scripts used by a given plugin should be packaged together.
Comment 4 Mark Macdonald CLA 2012-02-02 14:54:47 EST
*** Bug 349703 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 5 John Arthorne CLA 2015-05-05 15:46:35 EDT
Closing as part of a mass clean up of inactive bugs. Please reopen if this problem still occurs or is relevant to you. For more details see:


https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/orion-dev/msg03444.html
Comment 6 John Arthorne CLA 2015-05-05 16:00:19 EDT
Closing as part of a mass clean up of inactive bugs. Please reopen if this problem still occurs or is relevant to you. For more details see:


https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/orion-dev/msg03444.html