This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.
Summary: | Need to control showing of confirmation dialog when deleting a node in explorer | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | platform | Reporter: | _ rkubacki <rkubacki> |
Component: | Explorer | Assignee: | _ rkubacki <rkubacki> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | blocker | CC: | madamek |
Priority: | P2 | Keywords: | API_REVIEW_FAST |
Version: | 4.x | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
Issue Type: | ENHANCEMENT | Exception Reporter: | |
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 49517 | ||
Attachments: | patch |
Description
_ rkubacki
2005-03-11 11:40:11 UTC
Proposed solution is to provide a hint from a node obtained by explorer via Node.getValue() that will supress showing of default confirm dialog by explorer support and nodes can do handling in their own code. This is obviously not perfect solution. Some known drawbacks: - Default policy for showing of confirm dialog will be ignored. (In the particular case of EJBs we need additional input anyway.) - More dialog can be shown for multiselection of nodes that override default behaviour. Bad but better than limiting the module. - Multiselection containing nodes with default behaviour and modified nodes will show both dialog. Created attachment 20779 [details]
patch
patch with suggested change, apichange, documentation and test Martin, can you confirm if it helps you? Work fine for me. I have just one suggestion: can you introduce String constant "customDelete" somewhere so I can use it instead of direct usage of String value? So far I intentionaly did not published the name of attribute - it is in arch document only. Of course API reviewers can comment this. I am amazed by the test and I like the whole patch. We do not know of better solution to this need in current times. Re. publishing customDelete - if it is only "under development" API we cannot publish it as a field of any of org.openide.** class - that would immediatelly make it "official" api. While I agree with the patch, I do not think the whole solution clasifies for "official" api, it really does not support multiselection well which would be imho one needed feature of such "official" api. Any other opinions on this change? We need another reviewer to close this fast track. Thanks. I agree with Jarda. I think the patch can be integrated as it is proposed, with stability under development. Checking in openide/openide-spec-vers.properties; /cvs/openide/openide-spec-vers.properties,v <-- openide-spec-vers.properties new revision: 1.167; previous revision: 1.166 done Checking in openide/api/doc/changes/apichanges.xml; /cvs/openide/api/doc/changes/apichanges.xml,v <-- apichanges.xml new revision: 1.235; previous revision: 1.234 done Checking in openide/arch/arch-openide-explorer.xml; /cvs/openide/arch/arch-openide-explorer.xml,v <-- arch-openide-explorer.xml new revision: 1.20; previous revision: 1.19 done Checking in openide/src/org/openide/explorer/ExplorerActions.java; /cvs/openide/src/org/openide/explorer/ExplorerActions.java,v <-- ExplorerActions.java new revision: 1.66; previous revision: 1.65 done Checking in openide/src/org/openide/explorer/ExplorerActionsImpl.java; /cvs/openide/src/org/openide/explorer/ExplorerActionsImpl.java,v <-- ExplorerActionsImpl.java new revision: 1.8; previous revision: 1.7 done Checking in openide/test/unit/src/org/openide/explorer/ExplorerActionsImplTest.java; /cvs/openide/test/unit/src/org/openide/explorer/ExplorerActionsImplTest.java,v <-- ExplorerActionsImplTest.java new revision: 1.7; previous revision: 1.6 done Checking in openide/test/unit/src/org/openide/explorer/ExplorerPanelTest.java; /cvs/openide/test/unit/src/org/openide/explorer/ExplorerPanelTest.java,v <-- ExplorerPanelTest.java new revision: 1.12; previous revision: 1.11 reopening to changed 'assigned to' closing as fixed again *** Issue 33931 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** *** Issue 40992 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** |