Make ChromiumLineBreakpoint more reusable

[GoogleCodeExporter]

ChromiumLineBreakpoint currently hard-codes the debug model id to 
VProjectWorkspaceBridge.DEBUG_MODEL_ID. Since WorkspaceBridge 
implementations are able to supply their own model id, which is then used in 
other code, it'd be good to have ChromiumLineBreakpoint work in the same 
way.

Attached is a patch which implements that. Note that it does change 
ResourceManager to reference VProjectWorkspaceBridge.DEBUG_MODEL_ID. I 
didn't see a simple way for it to dynamically get the model ID, and in my 
WorkspaceBridge implementation I'm not using that class. It might be 
appropriate to consider both VProjectWorkspaceBridge and ResourceManager 
as part of a specific model implementation.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by dpodwall on 16 Feb 2010 at 10:10

Attachments:

• ChromiumLineBreakpoint_modelID.patch

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by peter.ry...@gmail.com on 3 Mar 2010 at 11:43

• Changed state: Accepted

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi dpodwall

Do you think you could upload your patch to a chromium codereview server?
We more or less use chromium processes, described in
http://www.chromium.org/developers/contributing-code
This document describes how to work with any of 2 utilities:

1. If your sources are under SVN, you can use  gcl  utility (available at SVN
repository http://src.chromium.org/svn/trunk/tools/depot_tools )

2. Even better if you use GIT you can use  git-cl  utility (available at from 
GIT
repository  git://neugierig.org/git-cl.git )

You'll need to have a google account to upload your patch to
http://codereview.chromium.org

Please let me know how it works for you.

Peter

Original comment by peter.ry...@gmail.com on 4 Mar 2010 at 1:38

[GoogleCodeExporter]

About content of your patch:

I see there is a marker type hardcoded. Just trying to get the whole picture. 
Is it
right to have different model ids and the same maker type?

Peter

Original comment by peter.ry...@gmail.com on 4 Mar 2010 at 1:40

[GoogleCodeExporter]

On the marker type, that's fine (so far is I know). Since the debug model ID is 
persisted as an attribute of the 
marker you can have the same marker type work with different debug models.

On the posting of the patch to the code review server, thanks for the pointers. 
It wasn't obvious that this project 
runs on the chromium process, since it's hosted at code.google.com rather than 
chromium.org.

According to the process I need to submit the corporate contributor license 
agreement prior to posting a patch. I'll 
initiate that, but I imagine it could take a while for approval on my end.

Original comment by dpodwall on 4 Mar 2010 at 2:38

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Thanks for trying with codereview server.

As to license agreement, I don't expect you will need this to upload the patch. 
Once 
you uploaded this and we agreed on the change, I can submit it for you.

Peter

Original comment by peter.ry...@gmail.com on 4 Mar 2010 at 5:14

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I can't upload the patch to the contributor license agreement, which the code 
review server says is a requirement 
for use. Is there any way the patch can be accepted, or a similar change made 
(it's quite simple).

Original comment by dpodwall on 7 Apr 2010 at 11:12

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Could you please try this:

http://code.google.com/p/chromedevtools/wiki/Contribution

Original comment by peter.ry...@gmail.com on 21 Apr 2010 at 7:43

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I am currently about to add your patch (finally :(
Please confirm that you are still interested in it.

I remember I discussed alternative model id with someone who needed to extend 
the
framework as well. However he was not sure he needed alternative model id at 
all:

http://code.google.com/p/chromedevtools/issues/detail?id=13
"
Yes, we use the same model ID. Is there any reason to change it? I.e. we don't 
have
any reason to change the 
presentation (I don't even think our plugin depends on ...ui project - only the
...core and ...sdk).
"

So I just wanted to double-check with you that we are not trying to make it more
flexible than actually needed.

Peter

Original comment by peter.ry...@gmail.com on 21 Apr 2010 at 8:35

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi Peter. Yes, we still need this change. We do have an IDebugModelPresentation 
implementation.

BTW, I've been trying to get access to the Google group using the "contact 
owner to join" with no luck. Do you 
know how I can join it?

Original comment by dpodwall on 21 Apr 2010 at 9:06

[GoogleCodeExporter]

OK. Thanks.

As to group, I think there is a member with email "podw...@gmail.com" in the 
group 
http://groups.google.com/group/chromedevtools-dev . Could you please check this?

Original comment by peter.ry...@gmail.com on 21 Apr 2010 at 9:29

[GoogleCodeExporter]

i can't see the membership because Google Groups says I'm not a member. If it's 
dpodwall at gmail that's me, but 
then I ought to have access. If it's podwall @ gmail that explains why I'm not 
a member. Thanks!

Original comment by dpodwall on 22 Apr 2010 at 12:23

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Patch is committed in HEAD as of r326

Original comment by peter.ry...@gmail.com on 22 Apr 2010 at 7:34

[GoogleCodeExporter]

About subscription:
Trying to send you an invitation I see a message I can't quite understand:
"
1 user doesn't permit managers to invite them 
dpodwall...
"

Original comment by peter.ry...@gmail.com on 22 Apr 2010 at 7:39

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by peter.ry...@gmail.com on 22 Apr 2010 at 7:40

• Changed state: Fixed