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.
Hi, I finished Object Types and File Types Settings redesign (this task I received from A. Nebuzelsky and Trung). Please, the implementation should be finished ASAP. Thanks Josef Pavlicek
Ability to order object types is missing. Dtto for file types. Open in editor: Jesse, do we really want to make it available? I'd suggest to show icons only if there is custom icon provided. > implementation should be finished ASAP. It is P3/TASK.
The Edit button next to Ignored Files looks useless to me. Just type in the box! Possibly some Object Types should be concealed, e.g. "Links" as displayed in the mockup is not something any user should edit. File Types editing area is scary. We do not provide any kind of GUI for editing these and the XML DTD is not documented in a place where users would find it even if they wanted to. IMHO: if we really want these things to be user editable, and we want it to be friendly, we would need to do a lot better than this. Spending time implementing the spec as given here seems wasteful to me. Would be quicker to just include the previous Advanced Options UI here, maybe visible only after pressing an Advanced... button or something, and wait for another release to try for a real UI.
Yet another missing feature is ability to configure set of available actions for given object type (including order and setting default action).
Hi, I agree with Jesse. We should improve Files Type Editor (no only use the NetBeans editor). I (really) discussed it in the HIE team and with developers too. The main problem is: now we have to move settings from Advanced Options section (this will be moved out from NetBeans). To develop good File Types Editor needs more time. We don't have it now. My - suggested solution, is not Ideal I know, but we can realize it very fast and the benefit for NetBenas it higher than to move it out from NetBeans I hope.
Obsolete milestone, please reevaluate
Implemented as issue 133773. *** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 133773 ***