I was going to ask you. Yeah, I think it makes sense. Might as well keep the JParam method as a convenience?
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:38 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Assuming we make parsing attributes using AttributeParsers required > (which makes perfect sense to me), I think we'll need to change > writer.getAttributeParser(JParam...) to take (JType...) instead. This > method only ever uses the types of the parameters, and many consumers of > attributes aren't actually parsing attributes for "parameters", but of > certain *types*. Does that make sense? > > > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/68805 > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
