What you describe, Ray, is definitely going to happen. It has to. I have begun a design doc for that very thing. I'll float it for comments as soon as I'm finished with the first draft.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Ray Cromwell <[email protected]> wrote: > > In particular, I use my own JsArray/JsMap implementation to avoid JRE > collections in GQuery. Perhaps rather than patching JsArray, there > should just be something like FastArrayList and FastMap which do not > implement JRE Collections, but are nothing more than wrappers around > JS arrays and objects for storing arbitrary Java objects. I suspect > this is what motivates the patch? > > -Ray > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 8:16 AM, John Tamplin<[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Stefan Haustein <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> I'd like to submit a patch (see below) that changes "JsArray<T extends > >> JavaScriptObject>" to "JsArray<T>" > >> > >> Motivation: > >> Support more lightweight code in places where we depend on Javascript > >> anyway. > >> In particular, I would like to remove the dependency on LinkedList in > >> AsyncFragmentLoader in a follow-up change. > >> > >> I have verified that this change does not introduce any new test > failures. > > > > What does it mean to store non-JS values in a pure JS array? What sort > of > > things do you want to store that aren't JSO's but would reasonably work? > > > > -- > > John A. Tamplin > > Software Engineer (GWT), Google > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
