Forgot about this during my vacation. In it goes.
Committed revision 5694.
On 2009/06/12 21:22:50, jgw wrote:
> On 2009/06/12 21:20:50, jgw wrote:
> > Ray:
> > That won't really protect anyone from anything, as they could just
call
> > DOM.createElement("bugger") and hand that in. Also, accepting an
existing
> > element is another way to say HTMLPanel.wrap(), which we haven't
provided so
> > far--you really want to go there?
> >
> > Anyhow, does any browser not accept <bugger>
> > <this><for><a><lark></lark></a></for></this></bugger>
> Well, we *do* have lots of methods to try and keep people 'on the
rails', such
> as createDivElement(), etc. which I believe reduces the risk of errors
in
> practice (they can always call createElement("bugger"), but usually
don't). But
> I think I'm ok with it, as it at least reduces the probability that
someone will
> try and use this as a back-door wrap() method, which would lead to
much wailing
> and gnashing of teeth on my part.
> LGTM.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/39802
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
