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 93227 - Action Property Editor should be disabled when not in App Framework
Summary: Action Property Editor should be disabled when not in App Framework
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: guibuilder
Classification: Unclassified
Component: App Framework (show other bugs)
Version: 6.x
Hardware: All All
: P3 blocker (vote)
Assignee: issues@guibuilder
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-01-25 22:29 UTC by Joshua Marinacci
Modified: 2013-06-04 16:12 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Issue Type: ENHANCEMENT
Exception Reporter:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Joshua Marinacci 2007-01-25 22:29:56 UTC
When working on a non-App framework (JSR296) application the action property editor from the 
appframework is being used. It should be completely disabled unless the user is working on a JSR296 
project. Currently there is no way to conditionally enable or disable property editors. This should be 
possible. In the future we will likely have more and more conditional behavior like this.
Comment 1 Jana Maleckova 2007-04-03 14:58:57 UTC
In my opinion, this should be fixed before merge to trunk.. now it's possible to
create new action in non App framework thanks to Application Action editor
Comment 2 Jana Maleckova 2007-04-03 15:15:05 UTC
I created another bug for this issue
http://www.netbeans.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=99833
Comment 3 Joshua Marinacci 2007-06-29 19:40:35 UTC
Due to other changes, the action property editor will now show a message that says "Custom Editing of this Property is not Supported", rather than showing 
the App Framework action editor. While it is ugly to have a message rather than just showing one of the standard editors, this is no longer a P1. The user 
cannot accidentally create an appframework action in a non appframework app. I'm marking it as a P3.
Comment 4 Tomas Pavek 2013-06-04 16:12:08 UTC
I think this is no longer valid.