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: | Netbeans does not get aware of the code change | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | java | Reporter: | paulhuang <paulhuang> |
Component: | Unsupported | Assignee: | issues@java <issues> |
Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | ||
Severity: | blocker | CC: | issues, mkubec |
Priority: | P2 | ||
Version: | 4.x | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
Issue Type: | DEFECT | Exception Reporter: |
Description
paulhuang
2005-03-23 08:27:15 UTC
You are right it really works this way. And it should be enhanced. But not P1 - it's the way how it works since error underlines were introduced. I admint that it's annoying, but I personally got used to it - and it's not good :-) I'd suggest to keep *opened file* uptodate, it means to do periodical check even if there were no change in the file, but just for the one opened file, and also for any file that gets focused in editor. It cannot be that expensive. Milo and others: I have recently written a one-pager for this (used internally for planning of features) - NbFeature1067. I agree with Milan that current behaviour is "as designed", so strictly speaking it's not a DEFECT but it seriously needs to be improved. It should be a java module issue (java module creates error annotation, editor just paints it), reassigning. I previously used Eclipse. They have already provide such intelligent awareness capability. I suggest we just look at their source code and see what's their solution. I think that the check should also apply when there are compilation errors in currently opened file. Because not every compilation error has to be fixed by editing of the file with error in source editor. Another possible fixes are: fixing another file, adding missing library, changing source level, etc. This is a known issue - setting as duplicate, leaving the original issue as P3, since it is really more an enhancement. Fixing it at this point would have significant performance implications. *** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 32882 *** |