Thanks for looking at this Thomas, Maybe UserAgent should just go into a path that has no client source associated with it. That would provide fine grain inheritance. But before we do do that, would it be reasonable in your uses to just inherit dom.Dom?
For all my uses this seemed reasonable. This still means that UserAgent is not independently inheritable, but that is a big issue that we have all over the place. We've done an extremely poor job of separating those modules that are setup to be inherited and those that just group some deferred binding rules. In fact, most of the modules in User cannot be inherited by themselves. To be honest, I wish we would start creating larger .gwt.xml files and make each one that exists inheritable. Doing that would mean that I would get rid of UserAgent.gwt.xml altogether and move its contents into dom.DOM.gwt.xml. (or either create useragent.UserAgent.gwt.xml) So, I'm not opposed to making useragent.UserAgent. But I would like to try to just make UserAgent be a part of DOM if that is at all feasible. http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/401 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
