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.

Bug 44592 - Title of document window contains [r/o] in conflict with UI specification
Summary: Title of document window contains [r/o] in conflict with UI specification
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 47290
Alias: None
Product: platform
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Window System (show other bugs)
Version: 4.x
Hardware: All All
: P4 blocker (vote)
Assignee: jrojcek
URL:
Keywords: UI
: 36848 58648 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-06-08 18:51 UTC by Marian Mirilovic
Modified: 2009-12-03 03:24 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Exception Reporter:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Marian Mirilovic 2004-06-08 18:51:04 UTC
[nb_dev](200406080606), [jdk1.5.0]

Steps to reproduce:
- run IDE
- open read-only java file
-> Document Window tab contains text "[read-only]" ,

 BUT UI specification:
http://ui.netbeans.org/nonav/docs/ui/ws/ws_spec.html#3.3
descibes title :
--------------
 Name of base document window - name of the base
document window  corresponds to a name of object
it displays, e.g. "ColorPicker". Name of the base
document window doesn't contain other information
than the name of the object to make the document
header as short as possible. An exception to this
rule is a modified status, which is currently
displayed as an asterisk in the document header.
--------------
Comment 1 Marian Mirilovic 2004-06-08 18:52:18 UTC
as it's descibed in above mentioned UI specifiation, move [read-only]
string to the desciption area (tooltip)...
Comment 2 _ tboudreau 2004-07-27 18:51:47 UTC
See also issue 23806 (change "[read-only]" to [r/o])) - we can do one or the other, not 
both.

Probably a better solution than either is to use boldface and font style to indicate 
modified/read-only.  This is already implemented - try running with

-J-Dnb.tabnames.html=true

but to be more than a hack, it requires an API addition.
Comment 3 Milos Kleint 2004-08-19 08:10:27 UTC
since issue 23806 was fixed, it renders this one invalid? needs the ui
spec to be updated? or was the fixing of 23806 not correct and shall
be rollbacked?

Comment 4 Marian Mirilovic 2004-08-19 08:25:22 UTC
issue 23806 was fixed 3 days ago..
 It will be nice to have read-only flag somewhere else than in the
title, and this way it's specified in UI spec , so reopen ...
Comment 5 Milos Kleint 2004-08-19 08:31:55 UTC
shouldn't have been the issues 23806 closed as invalid, rather than
fixing it? why bother changing from read-only to r/o when it should
not be there at all.. sorry, I don't understand that.
Comment 6 Marian Mirilovic 2004-08-19 09:40:43 UTC
I don't understand that too ;(

I've closed issue 23806 as INVALID, so fix this one now ;)
Comment 7 Jesse Glick 2004-08-19 18:57:55 UTC
Seems to me preferable to leave the [r/o] annotation there until the
HTML tab names technique provides a better replacement. With no visual
indication of the read-only status you may be quite confused why
typing text has no apparent effect in the editor.
Comment 8 jrojcek 2004-08-20 08:55:16 UTC
I will update the spec to show also the read-only status [r/o] in the tab title.
Comment 9 jrojcek 2004-10-28 20:32:57 UTC
*** Issue 36848 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 10 _ tboudreau 2004-10-28 23:14:56 UTC
For 4.1, let's implement the htmlization - bold for modified, italic dark gray for read only.  
It would be trivial to do and there's already a prototype - just needs a minor bit of API.
Comment 11 Jesse Glick 2004-10-29 00:37:11 UTC
I agree, we should do this already! I have been using nb.tabnames.html
for a while now and it is nice.
Comment 12 David Simonek 2004-12-07 16:08:01 UTC
Jano, I checked the spec and it seems that you didn't have the time to
update it yet? We have several ways to go:
1) I'll assing someone (probably Stan Aubrecht) to create mini spec
and  Jano will just review
2) Jano will find some free time between midnight and dawn and provide
mini spec :-)
3) I'll do nothing and that means this feature will not be in release
(remember it needs fast track review, which is a week of time etc..)

I would go 1) or 2), Jano?
Comment 13 Marian Mirilovic 2005-05-06 14:01:40 UTC
*** Issue 58648 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 14 Marian Mirilovic 2005-10-04 12:09:31 UTC
Still in conflict with UI spec ...
Comment 15 Jesse Glick 2009-10-20 17:17:18 UTC
I think issue #47290 obsoletes this.

*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 47290 ***
Comment 16 Marian Mirilovic 2009-12-03 03:24:15 UTC
v/c