@JsType(prototype="Window") means that "x instanceof Window" will return
false if the underlying object isn't a Window. That is, the GWT compiler
generates a JS instanceof operator with the specified prototype.
Otherwise, @JsType interfaces are treated like JavaScriptObject overlay
types as far as castability/instanceof is concerned.
isNative is just documentation for now, but says that the underlying
prototype is a browser built-in as opposed to a hand written user supplied
JS prototype. Native prototypes have restrictions that pure-JS ones don't.
@JsType(prototype="...") will also trigger an annotation processor in the
future that generates a stub _Prototype for extending, e.g.
@JsType(prototype="HTMLDivElement")
interface HTMLDivElement extends HTMLElement { ... }
will generate a
@PrototypeOfJsType(HTMLDivElement.class)
class HtmlDivElement_Prototype extends HTMLElement_Prototype { ... }
This makes it possible to subclass JS objects, e.g.
class MyDivElement extends HTMLDivElement_Prototype { ... }
On Tue Oct 28 2014 at 9:17:55 AM confile <michael.gorsk...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> Okay great. But what is the difference between the following?
>
> *@JsType(prototype="Window"**)* and *@JsType *
>
> Also could you please explain when to use isNative = true?
>
>
>
>
> Am Dienstag, 28. Oktober 2014 17:06:47 UTC+1 schrieb Ray Cromwell:
>>
>> GWT.create() doesn't work to create Js interfaces. It's part of the
>> GWT deferred binding system and can only be bound to concrete Java
>> subtypes. (GWT.create uses the 'new' operator)
>>
>> JsInterop is going to move towards Java8 syntax for the use case you
>> describe, e.g
>>
>> @JsType
>> interface Window {
>> static Window get() { return js("window"); }
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:33 AM, confile
>>
> <michael....@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > What is the difference in using the following?
>> >
>> > @JsType(prototype="Window") and @JsType
>> >
>> > It does not become very clear from the documentation.
>> >
>> > Here is the interface I implemented:
>> >
>> > @JsType(prototype="Window")
>> >
>> > public interface MyWindow {
>> >
>> >
>> > public static abstract class Statics {
>> >
>> > public static native MyWindow create() /*-{
>> >
>> > var w = $wnd;
>> >
>> > return w;
>> >
>> > }-*/;
>> >
>> > }
>> >
>> > void alert(String msg);
>> >
>> > }
>> >
>> >
>> > When I want to use the interface I have to do: MyWindow w =
>> > MyWindow.Statics.create();
>> >
>> > I also would expect that the following should work too: MyWindow w =
>> > GWT.create(MyWindow.class);
>> >
>> > The compiler throws an error in the later case:
>> >
>> > [ERROR] Line 46: Rebind result 'test.client.MyWindow' must be a class
>> >
>> > Unification traversed 735 fields and methods and 538 types. 7
>> are
>> > considered part of the current module and 7 had all of their fields and
>> > methods traversed.
>> >
>> > [ERROR] Compiler returned false
>> >
>> >
>> > Two questions:
>> >
>> > 1. When do I use or do I not use the prototype and isNative attribute
>> of
>> > @JsType?
>> >
>> > 2. Do I use the correct way to instantiate a JSInterop Interface?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Am Sonntag, 5. Oktober 2014 08:32:26 UTC+2 schrieb Ray Cromwell:
>> >>
>> >> Using default methods in Java8 is exactly how we plan to allow
>> >> specifying method bodies without using JSOs. We are also going to
>> >> introduce a new annotation, @JsFinal to declare these methods final
>> >> (which you can't do on interfaces) to make it a compile time error for
>> >> subclasses to override them.
>> >>
>> >> Why? One of the reasons why JSOs are efficient is that they are not
>> >> polymorphic, and essentially turn into static method calls, e.g.
>> >>
>> >> getState() is rewritten as getState(SwitchElement this$static) /*-{
>> >> return this$static.bootstrapSwitch("state"); }-*/; which is
>> >> inlineable by the compiler.
>> >>
>> >> Polymorphic methods are not inlineable and if there is a concrete
>> >> implementor, it forces the compiler to insert a trampoline, e.g
>> >> .
>> >>
>> >> @JsType
>> >> interface JsArray<T> {
>> >> default <T> get(int x) { return js("this[$0]", x); }
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> If we didn't have @JsFinal, and someone did class Blah implements
>> >> JsArray { ... }, it would slow down every single JsArray call in the
>> >> entire program, because the compiler has to emit code like this:
>> >>
>> >> jsArray.get ? jsArray.get(i) : this[i];
>> >>
>> >> That is, it has to check to see if the method is implemented and call
>> >> it, otherwise fall back to the default.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This is why the full JsInterop will require Java8, because it makes
>> >> syntax so much better, and without it, things get verbose and
>> >> boilerplatey.
>> >>
>> >> Java8 support is very close to landing. After that, a bunch of
>> >> JsInterop changes will go in. Then Elemental 2.0 will follow on top of
>> >> that which implements all of the code browser APIs you see at
>> >> html5index.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Cristian Rinaldi <csri...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > +Ray Cromwell:
>> >> > Suppose the following definition:
>> >> >
>> >> > @JsType(prototype = "jQuery")
>> >> > public interface JQueryElement {
>> >> > JQueryElement append(JQueryElement element);
>> >> >
>> >> > @JsProperty
>> >> > JQueryElement html();
>> >> >
>> >> > void data(String key, String value);
>> >> >
>> >> > Object val();
>> >> >
>> >> > void on(String event,
>> >> > com.workingflows.js.jscore.client.api.Function<?,?> fn);
>> >> >
>> >> > void attr(String attr, Object value);
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> > Now suppose that there is an element called SwitchElement, the item
>> is a
>> >> > JQueryElement but has a particual implementation of a method, for
>> >> > example:
>> >> >
>> >> > public class SwitchElement extends JavaScriptObject {
>> >> >
>> >> > protected SwitchElement() {
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> > public final native boolean getState()/*-{
>> >> > return this.bootstrapSwitch("state");
>> >> > }-*/;
>> >> >
>> >> > public final native void setState(boolean state)/*-{
>> >> > this.bootstrapSwitch("state", state);
>> >> > }-*/;
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> > The problem is, if the JQueryElement interface is implemented, all
>> >> > methods
>> >> > must be implemented. In fact, the implementation of JQueryElement is
>> >> > performed by the compiler, and I have no access to that
>> implentación.
>> >> >
>> >> > 1) The solution can be: define an Java8 interface with methods
>> >> > implemented
>> >> > by default?
>> >> >
>> >> > 2) It is possible to access a Prototype implementation of
>> JQueryElement,
>> >> > by
>> >> > example:
>> >> >
>> >> > public class SwitchElement extends JQueryElement.Prototype{
>> >> > protected SwitchElement() {
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> > public final native boolean getState()/*-{
>> >> > return this.bootstrapSwitch("state");
>> >> > }-*/;
>> >> >
>> >> > public final native void setState(boolean state)/*-{
>> >> > this.bootstrapSwitch("state", state);
>> >> > }-*/;
>> >> >
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> > But for this, it is necessary to use APT or the JsType generation
>> >> > process,
>> >> > is performed by APT.
>> >> > I'm right, or very far from reality.
>> >> >
>> >> > :)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > El sábado, 4 de octubre de 2014 15:24:19 UTC-3, Ray Cromwell
>> escribió:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes, but it will require Java8, which allows interfaces to contain
>> >> >> static methods. Here's how you'll do it soon when the Java8 stuff
>> >> >> lands:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> @JsType
>> >> >> public interface ImageUtils {
>> >> >> public static Texture loadTexture(String url) { return
>> >> >> js("$wnd.THREE.ImageUtils.loadTexture($0)", url); }
>> >> >> }
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ImageUtils.loadTexture(url);
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 8:18 AM, confile <michael....@googlemail.com>
>>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > Consider the following static JavaScript function:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > THREE.ImageUtils = {
>> >> >> > loadTexture: function (url) { ... }
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > }
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The way I use to create the static function with JsInterop is to
>> >> >> > create
>> >> >> > an
>> >> >> > interface for ImageUtils and then create an inner abstract class
>> >> >> > MyStatic
>> >> >> > which contains the static methods implemented with JSNI.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Here is an example of the above class:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > @JsType
>> >> >> > public interface ImageUtils {
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > public static abstract class MyStatic {
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > public static native Texture create(String url) /*-{
>> >> >> > return new $wnd.THREE.ImageUtils.loadTexture(url);
>> >> >> > }-*/;
>> >> >> > }
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > }
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I don't think this is the best solution. Is there a better way to
>> >> >> > handle
>> >> >> > static functions with JsInterop?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>> Google
>> >> >> > Groups
>> >> >> > "GWT Contributors" group.
>> >> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> >> >> > send
>> >> >> > an
>> >> >> > email to
>> >> >> > google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> >> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-
>> contributors/8f6cf42a-2910-4536-a2f7-1ae2d55422ac%40googlegroups.com.
>> >> >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> >> > Groups
>> >> > "GWT Contributors" group.
>> >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send
>> >> > an
>> >> > email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscribe@
>> googlegroups.com.
>> >> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >> >
>> >> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-
>> contributors/51be727d-0003-425b-9040-bd3c8529ddd1%40googlegroups.com.
>> >> >
>> >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> >
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups
>> > "GWT Contributors" group.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> an
>> > email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-
>> contributors/e40493a9-b890-47b0-ad31-5cd4e9c28a46%40googlegroups.com.
>> >
>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "GWT Contributors" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/94cce332-a8c7-4790-98a8-e752a5fd3dd8%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/94cce332-a8c7-4790-98a8-e752a5fd3dd8%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT
Contributors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/CAPVRV7f%2B4eRXykaK%3D-D9mqNBgcfe-ziyKUoHqP-y5eNyA3PAOg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
