> > > You lost me here. I think I misunderstand something. > If the compiler get ride of the overridden code, "causing code bloat" > isn't a reason to not allow subclassing like you mention above, not? >
Ah! I see the misunderstanding, nope, that was the justification for why it could be done efficiently, not why it should be done. The justification for why it should be done is different: If we allow subclasses, then we have to make pretty strong guarantees about how the default calendar view and month selector are implemented. That means that if GWT 2.0, if we figure out an awesome new way to write the default calendar view that blows the socks off of the old implementation, we wouldn't be able to switch to it. > > On Sep 25, 5:26 pm, "Emily Crutcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > do not cause code bloat. > > > Isn't the GWT compiler smart enough to overcome this? > > > I hope so. I have a quite a lot of gwt classes and many subclasses for > > > simple OO reasons :( > > > > Yep, that is actually my point - that the compiler is smart enough > > to aggressively get rid of unused code, so the defaults will be > completely > > dropped in favor of your custom code. > > > -- "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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
