@WithClientProperties is fine with me. I thought we used the term binding somewhere, but creating a DeferredBinding doesn't actual require the use of the term binding. The gwt.xml files just refer to these as properties.
Thanks, John LaBanca [email protected] On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Bruce Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:51 PM, John LaBanca <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I vote for @WithBindingProperties for the annotation name. > > > Is that a vote that we should start using the term "binding properties" in > general? > > I think that's not quite the right term (perhaps this should be a separate > thread) because increasingly, those properties will affect things like > compiler optimization behavior, code splitting, etc. That is, they don't > only affect how GWT.create() calls get bound. > > How about the term "client property"? It is a property that affects what > the client receives and is in every case somehow a function of the client > that is requesting the script. > > -- Bruce > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
