I haven't fully reviewed the changes, particularly to /common.ant.xml; but I
am curious why we need two different sentinel files rather than one file
with a composite name?
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Freeland Abbott
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> No, I didn't test the timing impact, and certainly not over several
> cycles. Yeah, I didn't realize it'd have the trickle-down... I thought user
> was an independent compile, and didn't think about the samples at all.
>
> Sigh.
>
> Re-done with sentinels restored and expanded for svnrev. Note that the
> svnrev value might contain characters illegal in Windows filenames, so
> there's an extra hop for that... also, we need to break the svninfo-getting
> bits out from gwt.revfilter, because we need that info to know what
> sentinels to look for to decide whether or not to filter. Finally, the
> about.{txt,html} were never sentinel-protected, which I think might make
> them wrong (in that an old version could be generated, a svn up performed,
> and the new one not generated) and certainly adds some time, so I
> sentinel'ed them along the same pattern.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Scott Blum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Freeland, did you actually try this out? You're killing the desk-rebuild
>> experience here, because when you force gwt-dev to rebuild every time, that
>> trickles down into a rebuild of user, samples, the whole nine yards.
>>
>> Adding gwt.svnrev into the name of the sentinel file would be a much
>> better alternative.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Freeland Abbott <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> That's as good a cause for a -1 as any, I suppose... attached no longer
>>> uses non-static "this" in static context, and also untangles (by removal)
>>> the creation of a sentinel file to gate the filtering. I believe the
>>> sentinel exists so that a change in gwt.version will cause the extant file
>>> to be considered out-of-date regardless of timestamp, but we'd now need
>>> another one for change in gwt.svnrev, and it seems the original test (much
>>> less the expanded one!) is probably more expensive than just refiltering
>>> each time!
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Scott Blum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 'Fraid I'm going to have to give this a -1 on account of not compiling.
>>>> :)
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Freeland Abbott <
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rajeev noted that my initializer in About.java is an instance
>>>>> initializer, not (as intended) a static one. Things appear to work anyway
>>>>> because they pull from about.txt and .html, but programmatic access would
>>>>> be
>>>>> uninitialized....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
