Hi Scott, Gin uses reflection because it reuses the heavy lifting from Guice, which is not GWT-aware.
Seems like both issues could be resolved if generators were loaded in the client code ClassLoader. Is there a technical or philosophical problem with doing so? I can understand it might not be at the top of the priority list right now, but wanted to know if it would be a bad thing if someone were to propose a patch. -brian On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Scott Blum <sco...@google.com> wrote: > Generally speaking, you do not want to use reflection inside a generator to > try to view the client code. That's what TypeOracle is for, that's the > supported way of viewing client code. > As for the separate issue of modifying and recompiling a generator itself > while running, you're right in that we don't explicitly support it. Using > unit tests during generator development as you suggest sounds like a good > strategy to me. In some cases, you might also get your IDE to do a > hot-replace if you modify the code while debugging, but this can be flaky. > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Alen Vrecko <alen_vre...@yahoo.com>wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >> continuing from >> http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit/browse_thread/thread/c65457fa4df351c1 >> . Sorry for the added garbage could have known better to post it here >> in the first place. >> >> I see generators as en extension to client code therefore I expect >> them to behave a bit like client code namely refresh recompiles the >> generator and client class code changes are visible to the generator. >> >> As recompiling the generator feature goes maybe it is a bit like >> fairytale i.e. not really needed. Will just write the unit tests for >> generators in any case before running the hosted mode and not play >> with the generator on the fly with change code shutdown-start hosted >> mode repeat. >> >> But seeing the latest class files inside generator is needed for >> refresh to work in some cases. Sure you can do much with TypeOracle >> but you can't instantiate the JType. Afaik there is no bridge between >> a JType and Class type. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Cheers >> Alen >> >> >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
