Committed revision 5711.
On 2009/07/09 00:02:01, Ray Ryan wrote:
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
