Why did I know you'd check in and respond before morning? ;-) On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:34 AM, John Tamplin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Freeland Abbott <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Attached is a proposal---it's missing tests, so it's just a proposal >> here---for that default locale issue we were looking at. It's slightly >> sideways from your suggestion: instead of not using "default" at all, this >> keeps it in play (figuring that various tools, including our own generators, >> expect "default" to be valid and work, always, as a safety), but instead >> associates it to a given "real" local as specified with a configuration >> property. >> > > I think it would be really unfortunate if we kept an extra permutation > since one of the reasons for doing all this in the first place is to limit > the number of permutations for development. > Sorry, I should have specified this: the idea is that for development you would generate only one locale permutation, namely "default," (i.e. as people tend to do now anyway), which would merely acquire useful bindings by the configuration property. My worry in pointing out that default was still there was for production, where we're losing an opportunity to prune 1 Nth of the permutations.... > Also, I think there are many other places that would need to be changed, > such as all the runtime locale handling. One complication is that classes > we don't control, such as user-supplied output formatters, would need to be > changed as well. > We're a little bit hosed either way there, though: either we are no longer generating default at all (and people who expected it lose), or we're lying to formatters and generators (saying that we're making default when we're really making the chosen default locale, and there is no literal "default" at all), or we, as here, generate default but with associations. I think the last is least surprising, but one reason for copying contributors here rather than doing the pre-cycle one on one was to solicit opinions if there are any. I'll take a tour for some of the runtime checks you mention, although it may be faster for you to walk me through them later. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
