search

cloudfoundry-attic / eclipse-integration-cloudfoundry

Cloud Foundry Integration for Eclipse
Apache License 2.0
41 stars 47 forks source link

[102404592] Refactor to CloudFoundry Branding extension point to allow programatic contributions for Cloud Server Urls. #47

Closed orlandoibm closed 9 years ago

cfdreddbot commented 9 years ago

Hey orlandoibm!

Thanks for submitting this pull request! I'm here to inform the recipients of the pull request that you've already signed the CLA.

cf-gitbot commented 9 years ago

We have created an issue in Pivotal Tracker to manage this. You can view the current status of your issue at: https://www.pivotaltracker.com/story/show/102405658.

orlandoibm commented 9 years ago

This is the description of the pull request:

Major changes include: 1) Adding a new property "urlProviderClass" to the service child of org.cloudfoundry.ide.eclipse.server.core.branding which is a class that returns programatically Cloud Server Urls. 2) Make the static extensions (defaultUrl and cloudUrl) to be both optional. 3) Added a new public interface ICloudFoundryUrlProvider that every contributor of the class mentioned in #1 must extend. 4) Created a new AbstractCloudFoundryUrl class that every Cloud Server Url must extend. This class provides all methods that identify a server. 5) Switched all possible references of the internal CloudServerURL class to use instances of AbstractCloudFoundryUrl, then deprecated all methods that were exposing that internal class. 6) Created a new class CloudServerUIUtil that exposes the new methods that return AbstractCloudFoundryUrl 7) Enhanced CloudUIUtil to publicly expose the methods that are real API (using the new AbstractCloudFoundryUrl) 8) Improved extension point reading, since now that dynamic Urls can be provided dynamically they can be read from a network call, so all UI places that use these are receiving a IRunnableContext so those operations can run forked and report progress.

nierajsingh commented 9 years ago

Thanks for these changes. I've reviewed the code and it looks fine for merging, but I'll test with our scenarios first to make sure nothing is broken. If all is fine with the testing, I'll merge.