"setTransientEnabledOnVisibleDates" seems a bit awkward. What if we removed
the "VisibleDates" from the name instead? So we'd have:
setTransientEnabled
addTransientStyleToDates
etc.
Why do we want people to be able to remove date styles that do not exist
without getting an assertion error? Do you have a use case in mind?
Cheers,
Emily
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:56 PM, Ray Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=4245
>
> Renames some methods to reduce the confusion between global and not
> global styles. Also fixes various varargs methods, which weren't
> really working.
>
> We now have styles (formerly global styles) and transient styles, the
> latter of which can only be applied to visible dates. The transient word
> appears in the former setEnabled method as well, for consistency.
>
> Removes separate methods for removing global and transient styles, as
> the former method would always remove the transient styles anyway, and
> it seems very unlikely that a client will use the same style name for
> both a transient and permanent date style.
>
> Adds unit tests for styles and enabling.
>
> TBR: ecc
> submitter: rjrjr
>
>
--
"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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
