Properly register ConsoleManager listeners on workbench windows

[iloveeclipse]

ConsoleManager service is activated on
org.eclipse.terminal.view.ui.internal.UIPlugin.start(BundleContext) before workbench creates any window. This prevents that it can register his window & perspective listeners to any window and so it can't properly manage terminals if they are opened from multiple different terminal view instances existing in parallel.

This happens because terminal ui bundle contributes ExternalExecutablesState service that is activated very early at workbench startup, before window creation.

Beside this, ConsoleManager service, if ever connected to a window, would only listen to that single window events and would never support other windows.

Fixed both issues by moving window & perspective listener registration (and de-registration) of ConsoleManager service to already existing org.eclipse.terminal.view.ui.internal.listeners.AbstractWindowListener.

Fixes #2455

[laeubi]

This happens because terminal ui bundle contributes ExternalExecutablesState service that is activated very early at workbench startup, before window creation.

Maybe the creation of the service should then be more lazy as well?

[iloveeclipse]

Maybe the creation of the service should then be more lazy as well?

I haven't checked which services (there are three as of today) and how should be or should be not activated at which time in terminal view ui bundle. However, I saw that there was already AbstractWindowListener code added (probably for similar reason) which one could reuse there to fix the current issue without refactoring whole bundle.

I would prefer to have this small fix integrated in RC1, which shouldn't be a big deal. For the possible optimization of terminal services one can create a dedicated ticket to work on in next release.

[github-actions]

Test Results

 1 977 files  ±0   1 977 suites  ±0   1h 35m 21s ⏱️ + 1m 30s
 4 743 tests ±0   4 719 ✅ ±0   24 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
14 229 runs  ±0  14 047 ✅ ±0  182 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit 837f94d. ± Comparison against base commit 17eafa7.

[iloveeclipse]

@laeubi : any objections to merge it for RC1?

[iloveeclipse]

Thanks.