JBIDE-18344 - revert previous change to AbstractJREComposite, use simple... #276
Conversation
…pler solution of setting selected page
| @@ -328,14 +328,12 @@ public IVMInstall getSelectedVM() { | |||
| public abstract List<IVMInstall> getValidJREs(); | |||
|
|
|||
| protected boolean showPreferencePage(String pageId) { | |||
| // return PreferencesUtil.createPreferenceDialogOn(getShell(), pageId, new String[] { pageId }, null).open() == Window.OK; | |||
| PreferenceManager manager = PlatformUI.getWorkbench().getPreferenceManager(); | |||
| IPreferenceNode node = manager.find(pageId); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Theoretically yes but realistically no, since we only pass in 2 page id's: the one for exec-env or installed jre's. Since these are part of base eclipse, it seems very unlikely they'd ever be null. I suppose some client could subclass and pass in an invalid node, but that's also very unlikely, since this composite's entire purpose is to link to exec-env / jre pages.
|
Does this mean https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-18083 needs to be reopeneded since seem this is a revert of it or ? |
I'm not sure on our policy of when to re-open old issues. I would say the original patch by daniel fixed the original issue, but had flaws. This is a new issue, caused by the old, and the fix is targeted to the new issue, not the old. They are related, but, without a clear policy of when to re-open the old issue, I'm not sure whether we should or not. The old issue is not present, before or after this patch. Only the new issue is present. So I'd vote against re-opening an old issue. But if you can point to a policy that I'm misunderstanding, I'd be glad to re-open it. |
|
Not sure why the policy is unclear - if the old issue is still there it needs reopening. it is not there then it does not need to open, that answers my question. I asked since it was not clear from the commit nor jira message wether that was the case. |
...r solution of setting selected page