Thanks, Kelly. Apologies for making you find a tree with wi-fi available....
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Kelly Norton <[email protected]> wrote: > Internet is alive today in the boonies.LGTM. > /kel > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Freeland Abbott <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Bruce, with Kelly away and Scott abdicating over JsArrayBase, it falls >> back to you for this patch. >> >> This should have only the non-contentious stuff (namely push and shift)... >> plus toSource, which I argue is dead-stripped if unused, and plausibly >> useful for debugging (yes, on Mozilla only, but it tests for definition, and >> I don't imagine anything else should want that method name). I can make an >> in-project utility class to do sort, since Kelly was nervous about setting >> an ill-considered trend for JSO functors. >> >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Freeland Abbott <[email protected]> >> Date: Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 9:55 PM >> Subject: Re: Review: JsArrays patch >> To: Kelly Norton <[email protected]> >> Cc: Scott Blum <[email protected]>, Bruce Johnson <[email protected]>, >> GWTcontrib <[email protected]> >> >> >> Okay. I'll look into sort and toSource tomorrow; right now I'm away from >> that project code to see whether I want to try to fight for sort. >> So this patch should, I hope, be just the easy stuff. Usually when I say >> something rash like that it turns out I'm very wrong, but we'll see. >> >> Regarding JSO, I pulled toSource, but left the I-think-helpful toString(). >> I know Scott worried about "pulling in" other types' toString(), but in >> separate private email I think his worry is unfounded---best I know, we >> don't analyze JSNI bodies, so while this implementation references >> toString() if available, it can't change code size by pulling anything in >> that wasn't already coming for the ride. I think; I'm sure he or someone >> will correct me if I'm wrong on that! >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 5:44 AM, Kelly Norton <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Few things: >>> Overall, I'd like to be more conservative landing things in >>> JavaScriptObject for a couple of reasons: (1) It's hard to take a mulligan >>> with these because of their constraints (2) there is always a trivial work >>> around to create application specific subclasses (with toll free casting). >>> >>> >> From r5082: I don't think toSource is appropriate for >>> JavaScriptObject. It only works on mozilla browsers. >>> >> JsArray.push: As I recall, this[this.length] = value is faster than >>> this.push(value) on all browsers. It's not a complexity change like >>> array.pop() is, but it can be significant. (How I do wish we had continuous >>> perf testing). >>> >>> >> javadoc: The javadoc for these should be written to describe what the >>> function does. "Direct mapping to underlying sort" is a good implementation >>> note, but we should actually way what it does and not rely on developers >>> having an understanding of the JavaScript equivalent. >>> >>> >> sort(JavaScriptObject): I'd like to avoid this one if we can. It just >>> opens up larger questions about the right way to do this. We don't currently >>> have a convention for representing JavaScript functions in Java. Someone >>> should probably have a good story there before we add something like this to >>> JavaScriptObject. >>> >>> /kel >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Freeland Abbott <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> I think the argument is more for "unnecessary" rather than "bad"... >>>> although without JsArrayBase (we can make it package-protected, and call it >>>> JsArrayImpl if anyone cares), we duplicate the JSNI implementation for a >>>> couple trivial methods. I thought refactoring them into one place was >>>> nice, >>>> but trivial enough that I'm not fighting over it. Revised patch attached; >>>> I >>>> can go either way on this. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Scott Blum <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm going to punt this review to Bruce & Kelly, 'cause I have no idea >>>>> why having JsArrayBase would be bad. :) >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Freeland Abbott < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Scott, we already talked about this, but here's the patch for public >>>>>> review. >>>>>> >>>>>> The basic goal is to surface the native length, sort, push, and shift >>>>>> operators for JsArrays... I know you mentioned that IE6's push may be >>>>>> slower >>>>>> than indexed extension, and thus a candidate for deferred binding, but I >>>>>> wanted to get a basic implementation in first. >>>>>> >>>>>> There should be only checkstyle changes from what we discussed (though >>>>>> that obviously doesn't help the rest GWTC). I also added some checkstyle >>>>>> fixes to JavaScriptObject, introduced by my c5082. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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). >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > 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). > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
