Too many entries for the default properties editor
Status: Abandoned
Brought to you by:
cschilling
When I copy the properties editor files into the plugins
directory I find multiple entries of the default editor listed
for properties files.
I am using:
Win2K
Eclipse 2.1.1
Before I install the properties editor plug-in there is
only one entry for the default properties editor in
Eclipse (I confirm it by going to Preferences->File
Associations and selecting *.properties).
As soon as I install the net.sourceforge.
propertieseditor_0.0.1 plug-in two entries appear
under Preferences->File Associations for *.properties.
Carlos
Logged In: YES
user_id=499595
Dear Carlos!
Eclipse provides a Properties Editor (labeled as "Properties
Editor") of its own with the Java Development Tools (JDT).
This is the default Editor for .properties files. It's
defined in the "org.eclipse.jdt.ui"-Plugin.
The Properties Editor Plugin provides a Properties of it's
own as well, labeled "Properties Editor (colored)". So there
are two Editors under the "File Associations" preferences.
If you want to use the Editor provided by our Package by
default, select it and click the "Default" button.
Having both plugins doesn't make any difference because just
the default plugin is loaded when you open a .properties
file. If you don't want the other Properties Editor to be
displayed you can simply remove it from the "Associated
Editors" list in the "File Associations" prefernces page.
Best regards,
Manuel
Logged In: YES
user_id=572551
I obviously did not describe the problem properly. After
installing your properties editor the default eclipse editor
appears twice and then yours for a total of 3 editor entries.
There should only be two.
Carlos
Logged In: YES
user_id=499595
Well, this kind of behavior is definetly not the one
expected. I'm using the same configuration as you do but
can't reproduce the problem you describe. Which Java version
do you use?
I opened the bug again and hope we can figure out soon where
the problem is.
After reading your description again I think you described
well and I misunderstood. So my mistake, sorry for that!
Best regards,
Manuel