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.

Bug 47136 - Add Breakpoint.getBreakpointType()
Summary: Add Breakpoint.getBreakpointType()
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: debugger
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Code (show other bugs)
Version: 4.x
Hardware: All All
: P3 blocker (vote)
Assignee: issues@debugger
Keywords: API
: 47141 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Reported: 2004-08-12 00:54 UTC by ivan
Modified: 2010-01-21 15:55 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Exception Reporter:


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description ivan 2004-08-12 00:54:07 UTC
While writing a bpt customizer I was in a position
to have a panel get a Breakpoint and need to get
at the type in order to get a sub-customizer.
But there is no Breakpoint.getBreakpointType()!

This would also mean that the constructor for
Breakpoint needs a BT passed in.

I'm sure this can be worked around but it would be
a nice improvement. Also make BreakpointType
become a factory of Breakpoints?
Comment 1 Jan Jancura 2004-12-01 16:35:18 UTC
looks like venus issue
Comment 2 Jan Jancura 2004-12-01 16:36:24 UTC
*** Issue 47141 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 3 Roman Ondruska 2005-05-17 09:30:49 UTC
Ivan S.: When fixing, see also duplicate 47141 (47141 has an additional
comment/request for enhancement that is different and is not mentioned in 47136)
Comment 4 Martin Entlicher 2010-01-21 09:32:15 UTC
We can not add Breakpoint.getBreakpointType() that would return BreakpointType. The API was designed (IMHO unnecessarily) into two modules, therefore api.debugger should not depend on spi.debugger.ui - since the dependency is vice-versa.
Therefore Breakpoint can not access BreakpointType.

However, I prepare to add additional properties to Breakpoint (like String type, language, etc.)
Comment 5 Martin Entlicher 2010-01-21 10:56:59 UTC
Please have a look at issue #179759 and This is supposed to solve this as well. Would it be sufficient?
Comment 6 ivan 2010-01-21 15:55:56 UTC
Too bad about the module dependency thing.

Names are OK; that's what I end up effectively using
However, see my IS2 comment on issue #179759.