> Can you think of any other relevant use cases?
4. Uncaught exception in onGwtEventPreview().
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Emily Crutcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The naming was mimicking the EventPreview interface we have for the
> underlying native events. Don't mind changing it, but it seems like
> the consistency is nice.
> I think the testing should be fairly trivial as we have three use cases.
>
> no event preview set on a handler manager.
> an event preview set on a handler manager that returns false
> an event preview set on a handler manager that returns true
>
> Can you think of any other relevant use cases? I'll wait until after the
> kids are asleep tonight to implement, so if any of you can think of any
> objections throughout the day, please pipe up! Especially any reason that
> would lead us to believe that his is not the canonical solution we want to
> implement.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Ray Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> It's fine with me if the trivial amount of time it will take to add
>> includes time for test coverage.
>> On naming, how about GwtEventPreviewer and setEventPreviewer.
>> rjrjr
>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:37 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"
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
