The most important issue in my mind is that it isn't always appreciated to take a minor feature change that very few developers will ever use and use it as an excuse to mix up the existing API. Take, in contrast, the xxxListener to xxxHandler change. There was a lot of pain in that one, but it resulted in significant benefits for a majority of developers.
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 9:18 PM, brett.wooldridge<[email protected]> wrote: > > As a long time Java programmer (since v0.9!), I'd just like to throw > in that I don't see any particular practical benefit to leveraging > Runnable or Callable<V>. Sure, they are just interfaces, and you > could re-use them. But beyond that, especially with respect to > Callable<V>, almost nothing execution related from > java.util.concurrent is applicable to thread-less JavaScript. > Borrowing one interface from java.util.concurrent because it has the > same signature, yet not implementing any of the java.util.concurrent > features is more confusing to a Java programmer coming to GWT. > > So while I appreciate Eric's point of view, I don't share it. Jason's > suggestion of re-using Executor and ExecutorService is also likely not > practicable in GWT because of ExecutorService's blocking methods > (invokeAll(), awaitTermination). > > Ray's last suggestion gets my vote. It looks substantially like the > existing pattern and does not inject unnecessary new controller or > scheduler classes. I'm of the "simplest thing that can possibly work" > school of thought as of late. > > Brett Wooldridge > > > > -- Google Code Jam 2009 http://code.google.com/codejam --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
