> > > Ok, so I should ignore that, right? > Yep.
> > >>> - Did you read the >>> GWTC<http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors/browse_thread/thread/866faa00c999069/703f4dfa4d5ab1b7> >>> >>> threads<http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors/msg/eb3e5cee315a4e25>about >>> trying to do this in GWT 1.4? The consensus was that it was not safe >>> to rely on being able to remove all properties, and that even if it were >>> possible it would be fragile to future browser changes (the second thread >>> has a test HTML file, though it is missing __proto__). I think you will >>> need to rely on a prefix, just as we do in FastStringMap. At there very >>> least, you should include "__proto__", "prototype", "constructor", >>> "toString", "watch", "unwatch", and "valueOf" in your test. An >>> alternative >>> would be to not attempt to clean up things like that and simply document >>> that no JS-defined property can be used in the string, though that seems >>> problematic. >>> >>> What code are you looking at? I'm not removing any properties and already >> testing watch. >> > > The JsMap.patch you sent (I duplicated watch, but the others don't appear > to be tested). In particular, __proto__ was determined to be the > showstopper before. > good, so we're looking at the same code :-). I'll double check the others. As far as I know, the previous conversations on GWT-contrib had focused around removing a specific list of keywords, the technique used here is to test to make sure the key is defined in the current object, not its prototype. > >>> - Are you sure the complexity regarding a separate hosted-mode >>> implementation is justified? Aside from more opportunities for errors, >>> it >>> means two separate implementations are not tested to be exactly the >>> same, so >>> any holes in the tests are an opportunity for divergent behavior in >>> hosted >>> mode. >>> >>> Did you have a chance to run the benchmark I sent you? >> > > Not yet, but the performance in OOPHM is not terribly relevant since this > will be in long before OOPHM is. > This collection set is targeted for GWT 2.0, not GWT 1.6, so I do think it is relevent. If you could run it, I'd find it very useful in determining if we need a hosted mode implementation. > > >>> - Missing newlines at the end of all the .gwt.xml files. >>> >>> Our gwt.xml are supposed to have an extra new line at the end of them? >> > > Every line should be terminated, but here the last one isn't. > Makes sense, thanks. > > > -- > John A. Tamplin > Software Engineer (GWT), Google > > > > -- "There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't" --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
