On 11/11/08 21:53, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>
> Xavier de Gaye wrote:
>
>>>> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Xavier de Gaye<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> It is not clear if netbeans "killed" events are correctly sent by Vim.
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Conclusion:
>>>>> As it is, "killed" events are useless for the netbeans application
>>>>> (but they cannot be ignored as the bufno reference is not anymore
>>>>> valid after receiving the event).
>>>>> I would like to propose to remove the global netbeansCloseFile
>>>>> entirely from the code, expecting that this would cause a "killed"
>>>>> event whenever a buffer is not anymore visible in any window, but I
>>>>> don't know Vim code sufficiently to be sure that this is the case.
>>>>
>>>> I have missed the following important point: the Vim signs placed in
>>>> the buffer are removed by bdelete and by bwipeout, but not by bunload
>>>> or by any other Vim command.
>>>>
>>>> The netbeans application must keep track of the Vim signs, so I
>>>> suggest:
>>>> * the semantics of the "killed" event is:
>>>> the bufno reference is invalid
>>>> the signs have been removed by Vim
>>>> * the code is changed so that only bdelete and bwipeout
>>>> trigger a "killed" event (not bunload)
>>>> * the documentation is updated accordingly
>>> One wonders what the original meaning for "killed" is: buffer deleted or
>>> unloaded? I don't know.
>>>
>>> What is more useful? Perhaps we need both a "killed" and an "unloaded"
>>> event?
>>
>> Having "unloaded" events would be nice and would allow the netbeans
>> application or IDE to know when a buffer is not visible.
>>
>> But the main problem is that Vim and the netbeans application must
>> maintain the list of netbeans buffers and the corresponding signs
>> (netbeans annotations) in a consistent state. So I think buffer
>> deletion notifications (caused by bdelete and bwipeout commands, that
>> remove the signs in a buffer) are needed and should be mapped to
>> "killed" events.
>
> OK. So a ":quit" will not cause a "killed" event.
...unless, maybe, the result is to exit Vim? (But this case ought to be
covered by BufDelete.)
>
>> I think this can be fixed by calling netbeans_file_closed() from
>> free_buffer_stuff(), just after buf_delete_signs(). This would cause a
>> "killed" event to be sent when bdelete or bwipeout are invoked.
>>
>> What do you think ? I did not understand what issue is fixed by
>> calling netbeans_file_closed() from buf_freeall(), in your other mail.
>
> It's just that calling netbeans_file_closed() from one place avoids that
> it's not called when making changes. But it may be called at the wrong
> moment, one needs to inspect the code to check.
>
Best regards,
Tony.
--
Main's Law:
For every action there is an equal and opposite government
program.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
