Do you have a proposal in mind? Everything we tightened down we had good
reason to do so.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Ray Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And as Emily and I just chatted offline, if we're loosening things up I'd
> rather see us allow folks to provide their own HandlerManager implementation
> (or wrapper around ours) than just try to predict the one or two hooks
> they'll find useful.
> rjrjr
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 7:59 AM, Emily Crutcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> We have made the fireEvents() final in handler manager and made it
>> impossible for users to replace the handler manager in widget, so I think
>> this change would be necessary to preserve the full spirit of what we've
>> been doing to upgrade the user's event system.
>>
>> However, we can tell people to use super-source to replace their handler
>> manager class instead. It is not as clean of a solution, but it will work,
>> and we can wait to see if anyone truly howls for this feature and put it
>> into gwt 2.0 instead, then it can be a cool upgrade instead :-).
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Emily
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Bruce Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Is this really part of the handler update? If this can wait, let's wait.
>>> We need to wrap up the changes to handlers ASAP.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Emily Crutcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've managed to convince myself that it would be a trivial amount of
>>>> work to introduce a GwtEventPreview interface into the events package and
>>>> that the change would be a good one. In specific we would have:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> public interface GwtEventPreview {
>>>> boolean onGwtEventPreview(GwtEvent event);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> and, in HandlerManager:
>>>>
>>>> public void setGwtEventPreview(GwtEventPreview preview)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then, in the final fireEvent method, if a preview has been installed,
>>>> the event is routed through the preview first and is only fired if the
>>>> preview returns true.
>>>>
>>>> Can anyone think of any problems with this logic, any reason this
>>>> change would take more then a few minutes to create, or
>>>> any potentially better solutions which we might want to use instead? As we
>>>> can certainly wait until GWT 2.0 to introduce something like this if we can
>>>> think of any conceivable objections.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Emily
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> "There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand
>>>> binary, and those who don't"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> >>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand
>> binary, and those who don't"
>>
>
>
--
"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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
