Remove SciJava Script and Class search actions

[gselzer]

The Source search action is super cool. It's so cool that I wanna move it upstream.

The interesting thing, though, is that it is really 3 actions in 1. Each action has the same result, but operates on different types.

• One action operates on ScriptInfos, opening a org.scijava.ui.swing.script.TextEditor to display the source code. That functionality is moved into scijava/script-editor in scijava/script-editor#63
• The second action operates on ModuleInfos more generally. That functionality is moved into SciJava Search via scijava/scijava-search#24

My remaining question: What does the remaining functionality in SourceSearchActionFactory get us? The only difference between this ActionFactory and the work added to scijava/scijava-search#24 is that this ActionFactory assumes that the ModuleInfo is a CommandInfo and loads the class from the Presets of that CommandInfo via IJ1Helper.getClassLoader.

Do we really need to do all of that? I'll have to understand it better...

[ctrueden]

@gselzer wrote:

it is really 3 actions in 1. Each action has the same result, but operates on different types. ... What does the remaining functionality in SourceSearchActionFactory get us?

The three actions you're talking about are:

1. SciJava scripts:

   if (info instanceof ScriptInfo) sourceForScript((ScriptInfo) info);

2. Legacy (original ImageJ) commands:

   if (id.startsWith("legacy:")) sourceForLegacyCommand(info);

3. Other modules, notably SciJava/ImageJ2 Command plugins:

   sourceForClass(info, info.loadDelegateClass());

So by "remaining functionality" you mean (3), right? What it gets us is a Source button for SciJava commands, like everything in imagej-plugins-commands for example.

Do I understand your question correctly?

[gselzer]

Do I understand your question correctly?

@ctrueden hard to say as I am having trouble recalling, but I think by "remaining functionality" I was describing (2), as (1) and (3) encapsulated the functionality I moved out.

I think my point was just to make sure that we actually need (2) here, if we have (3) already. But again, I don't really remember since this was months ago.