In 090406 I notice that with an NBM project open, A-S-O and "project.xml" shows no matches. "project" will show Java
source files with "Project" in the name.
Looks like this regression is caused by switching to the Parsing API.
The reason is after switching to Parsing API not whole project folder is used for indexing but source and test roots of it.
*** Issue 162213 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Just hit the same thing with issue 162213. I must say I think this is quite serious - Go to File is used primarily for
files that are not on your classpath, like project.xml, manifest, persistence.xml, web.xml, faces-config.xml etc.
I would agree; it seems the primary use case for this action is broken. It is now only useful for opening e.g. icons in
the sourcepath, relatively uncommon.
*** Issue 162597 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Obviously a better fix is possible once issue 162580 will be fixed.
Thansk a lot. It looks like the new implementation goes through all folders in the project - what would be the
performance? The main motivation for using the index was to improve the performance, what is the performance now
compared to 6.5?
performance should be at least none the worse then in 6.5 . Because already indexed folders and subfolders are omitted. And also filtered out build, dist,
and all hidden folders and its subfolders.
Still does not work quite well for me, I reported issue 162829.
Also, I am looking at the source, and I don't understand one thing: it looks like when the code goes through all the
project directories, the ones that are in source roots are filtered out using condition roots.contains(current).
However, this condition is only applies to the first level of directories, not to the deeper levels. So, when for
example I have a Java web project, which by default places Java sources under src/java, will this directory be correctly
filtered out during the sequential directory search?
You don't have to worry about sources, they should be indexed by Parsing API
Not sure if I expressed my doubts clearly, I filed a separate issue 162969 to more clearly describe it. 162969 was
introduced by the fix for this issue.