+1 On 12/3/08, Bruce Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey, that's a nice visualization! Using a nice view like that, we can > probably iterate in early 2009 to clean up a lot of this. > (Spoiler alert: I'm going to start advocating hard in 2009 to get rid of > module XML altogether and use package and class annotations instead.) > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Kelly Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> btw, Attached is a morbid look at the dependency graph starting from >> user.User. >> /kel >> >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:50 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> I'm going to add useragent.UserAgent and update a new patch. >>> /kel >>> >>> On 2008/12/03 12:50:52, knorton wrote: >>> >>>> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> If you received this communication by mistake, you are entitled to one >> free >> ice cream cone on me. Simply print out this email including all relevant >> SMTP headers and present them at my desk to claim your creamy treat. We'll >> have a laugh at my emailing incompetence, and play a game of ping pong. >> (offer may not be valid in all States). >> >> > >> > > > >
-- Fred Sauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
