Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[StickyScrolling] Introduce enhancement point #2756

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Christopher-Hermann
Copy link
Contributor

In order to implement editor/language specific sticky lines provider, a new extension point is introduced.

See issues:

The idea is that the package of the extension point is internal in the first place.

  1. We from SAP will provide a extension for the SAP language ABAP.
  2. In [Help Needed] Implement provider for sticky scrolling in JAVA/JDT eclipse-jdt/eclipse.jdt.ui#1851 we provide a implementation for JDT.

If both implementation works as expected, the API is most probably stable and we can change to package of the extension point to public usage.

In order to implement editor/language specific sticky lines provider, a new extension point is introduced.
@@ -15,7 +15,8 @@ Export-Package:
org.eclipse.ui.internal.editors.text.codemining.annotation;x-internal:=true,
org.eclipse.ui.internal.texteditor;x-internal:=true,
org.eclipse.ui.internal.texteditor.stickyscroll;x-internal:=true,
org.eclipse.ui.texteditor
org.eclipse.ui.texteditor,
org.eclipse.ui.texteditor.stickyscroll;x-internal:=true
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

so we would remove the "x-internal:=true" part to make this "real" API once we are confident enough?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, that would be the idea. But I'm not sure if this is the right approach or if this is a good idea.

Copy link
Contributor

Test Results

0 files   -  1 214  0 suites   - 1 214   0s ⏱️ - 50m 53s
0 tests  -  7 717  0 ✅  -  7 489  0 💤  - 228  0 ❌ ±0 
0 runs   - 16 208  0 ✅  - 15 740  0 💤  - 468  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 3c397ec. ± Comparison against base commit ec4235b.

@mickaelistria
Copy link
Contributor

Can this share a lot of code with the folding range?
Instead of a new dedicated provider API, could it be implemented through reconciler and annotations (just like Folding) ?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants