I prefer "Unknown" because it's an indication you are looking at suboptimal stack trace output. "JavaScript" makes it sound like we actually intend for you to be looking at that output, when in fact, you really want to use symbol maps to reverse lookup the Java idents. On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Fred Sauer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Web mode stack traces are steadily improving. You can even get line numbers > (by inheriting com.google.gwt.core.EmulateJsStack). > > Without the extra instrumentation you web mode stack traces might look > something like this: > at Unknown.$NullPointerException() > at Unknown.onClick_6() > at Unknown.dispatch() > at Unknown.$fireEvent() > at Unknown.$fireEvent_0() > at Unknown.$fireEvent_1() > at Unknown.fireNativeEvent() > at Unknown.onBrowserEvent() > at Unknown.dispatchEventImpl() > at Unknown.dispatchEventAndCatch() > at Unknown.anonymous() > > I was thinking it might make slightly more sense if we replaced 'Unknown' > with 'JavaScript', e.g. > > at JavaScript.$NullPointerException() > at JavaScript.onClick_6() > at JavaScript.dispatch() > at JavaScript.$fireEvent() > at JavaScript.$fireEvent_0() > at JavaScript.$fireEvent_1() > at JavaScript.fireNativeEvent() > at JavaScript.onBrowserEvent() > at JavaScript.dispatchEventImpl() > at JavaScript.dispatchEventAndCatch() > at JavaScript.anonymous() > > > Anyone have strong opinions wither way? > > -- > Fred Sauer > Developer Advocate > Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway > Mountain View, CA 94043 > [email protected] > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
