Back port of 'Asynchronous requests to Tern Server (Issue #171)' into 0.8.x branch by vrubezhny · Pull Request #144 · angelozerr/angularjs-eclipse · GitHub
Skip to content

Back port of 'Asynchronous requests to Tern Server (Issue #171)' into 0.8.x branch#144

Merged
angelozerr merged 2 commits into
angelozerr:angularjs-eclipse-0.8.x-branchfrom
vrubezhny:angularjsAsynchTernRequests
Feb 20, 2015
Merged

Back port of 'Asynchronous requests to Tern Server (Issue #171)' into 0.8.x branch#144
angelozerr merged 2 commits into
angelozerr:angularjs-eclipse-0.8.x-branchfrom
vrubezhny:angularjsAsynchTernRequests

Conversation

@vrubezhny

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Additional changes:

  • refactoring of completion proposals collection - introduced a record
    object to hold all information relevant to a completion item
  • refactoring of collectors API - collection algorithms have been moved
    out of *TernServer classes and placed in singletons

vrubezhny and others added 2 commits February 20, 2015 22:00
Back port of 'Asynchronous requests to Tern Server (Issue angelozerr#171)' into 0.8.x branch

Signed-off-by: vrubezhny <vrubezhny@exadel.com>
Additional changes:
- refactoring of completion proposals collection - introduced a record
object to hold all information relevant to a completion item
- refactoring of collectors API - collection algorithms have been moved
out of *TernServer classes and placed in singletons
@vrubezhny vrubezhny force-pushed the angularjsAsynchTernRequests branch from 653347b to 4a584b9 Compare February 20, 2015 19:02
@vrubezhny

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

angelozerr added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 20, 2015
Back port of 'Asynchronous requests to Tern Server (Issue #171)' into 0.8.x branch
@angelozerr angelozerr merged commit de2316a into angelozerr:angularjs-eclipse-0.8.x-branch Feb 20, 2015
@pascalleclercq

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@angelozerr

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Thank a lot for your work @pascalleclercq !

@vrubezhny @alexeykazakov could you give us if it's OK for you?

@vrubezhny

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Unfortunately we had not to use v.0.7.2 in JBT 4.2.3 (There was a lot of changes so we couldn't fix this 'deadlock' issue), so we had to move to 0.8.2. And yes, it looks OK for us.

@angelozerr, @piotrtomiak and @pascalleclercq - thank you for your great work!

@angelozerr

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants