We can open a Bugzilla entry after we determine this to be feasible.
Perhaps we can further discuss this in the next CDT monthly meeting.
Thanks,
Navid
From:
cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Cortell
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010
5:53 PM
To: CDT General developers list.;
CDT General developers list.
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Renaming
"DSF Disassembly"
There is no bugzilla entry for it but feel free to create one. We can
use it to record our results.
I'm hoping we will have it done in time for 7.0. We're still trying to
determine the feasibility of it, so I can't say for sure it will happen. But I
can tell you someone is actively working on it and that we'll keep everyone
posted, whichever way it ends up going.
John
At 04:48 PM 1/13/2010, Mehregani, Navid wrote:
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_496565EC904933469F292DDA3F1663E602AA31153Cdlee06enttico_"
Hi
John,
Is this planned for CDT 7.0? Is there a bugzilla entry for it?
Thanks,
Navid
From:
cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [ mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Cortell
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010
5:19 PM
To: CDT General developers list.;
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Renaming
"DSF Disassembly"
We are actively working on retrofitting the DSF Disassemby view to work with
CDI, thus making the non-DSF one obsolete. If we are successful, this will
address your concern, since there will only be one view.
John
At 04:16 PM 1/13/2010, Mehregani, Navid wrote:
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_496565EC904933469F292DDA3F1663E602AA31150Cdlee06enttico_"
Hello,
Ive used activities to hide CDIs Disassembly view. Our product is only
shipped with DSF Disassembly view. However, our users dont know or care
about DSF. Im sure most CDT users (not developers) really know what
DSF/CDI is.
At first I thought about hiding the DSF Disassembly view via activities and
redefining it with a new name, but that doesnt work since DisassemblyView class
is in an internal package thats not exported. I assume the community
wouldnt want to export this package? I obviously dont want to duplicate
the code in DisassemblyView and DisassemblyPart.
Does anyone else have this problem? Does it make sense to rename DSF
Disassembly to something that would be a bit more meaningful to CDT users?
(similar to Memory and Memory Browser views).
Thanks for your help,
- Navid
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev