Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.
Bug 51046 - Refactoring should use scheduling rules [refactoring]
Summary: Refactoring should use scheduling rules [refactoring]
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: JDT
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: UI (show other bugs)
Version: 3.0   Edit
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P3 major (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: JDT-UI-Inbox CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on: 51045
Blocks:
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2004-02-02 05:55 EST by Dani Megert CLA
Modified: 2009-08-30 02:22 EDT (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Dani Megert CLA 2004-02-02 05:55:58 EST
I20040202

PerformChangeOperation calls JavaCore.run which locks the whole workspace.
There's now support to pass a scheduling rule (see ISchedulingRule and
IResourceRuleFactory) which reduces the locking scope of the operation.

JavaCore must offer API to fix this bug (see bug 51045).

Test Case: start to sync your workspace and then delete a class.
Comment 1 Dirk Baeumer CLA 2004-03-10 04:58:20 EST
In general this will not change since a refactoring must lock the workspace to 
make sure the it doesn't change while it computes the side effects of a 
refactoring. 

However this might be different on delete since this doesn't have side effects 
right now. Changing title.
Comment 2 Dirk Baeumer CLA 2004-03-22 15:27:47 EST
Even for delete we can't do something since their can be participant for 
delete. And the refactoring doesn't know upfront what a paricipant is going to 
change.
Comment 3 Dirk Baeumer CLA 2004-05-18 05:18:45 EDT
Due to the reasons outlined I don't know upfront which scheduling rules are 
needed by participants without loading them. But this violates the lazy 
loading rule.
Comment 4 Denis Roy CLA 2009-08-30 02:22:21 EDT
As of now 'LATER' and 'REMIND' resolutions are no longer supported.
Please reopen this bug if it is still valid for you.