Okay, I've made these code changes. New patch coming soon. What shall we do about -resources? Is it okay to make it a no-op immediately, or should we continue to support it a little while longer?
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/69801/diff/1001/2022 File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/linker/CompilationAnalysis.java (right): http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/69801/diff/1001/2022#newcode48 Line 48: public abstract List<SoycArtifact> getReportFiles(); That would be a problem. For this particular class, it's not intended that there are any other implementers, and my brief searches could not turn any up. http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/69801/diff/1001/2024 File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/linker/SoycReportLinker.java (right): http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/69801/diff/1001/2024#newcode76 Line 76: "Error while generating a Story of Your Compile", e); Done, and everywhere else I could find a mention of "SOYC" or "Story of Your Compile". I have not changed PerfLogger calls, class names, or comments; those seem low priority. I have not changed the command-line options, but we should do that once we figure out the new options. http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/69801/diff/1001/2036 File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/JavaToJavaScriptCompiler.java (right): http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/69801/diff/1001/2036#newcode973 Line 973: if (sizeBreakdowns != null) { Now that I look at the code, however, it looks possible to specify detailed info but not the lite info. In my mind, developers would never ask for the extra detail without also getting the lite level of detail. It looks like a separate issue from this patch. However, I agree it makes sense to either have the detailed soyc argument imply the regular one, or to complain about the command-line arguments if the regular one isn't already specified. http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/69801/diff/1001/2036#newcode1071 Line 1071: } Done. Changed to EmittedArtifact. http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/69801/diff/1001/2025 File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/soyc/Settings.java (right): http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/69801/diff/1001/2025#newcode185 Line 185: " present only for backwards compatibility; add any resources directory to the classpath")); How about: "present only for backwards compatibility; directory or jar file with CSS, etc., resources" http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/69801/diff/1001/2027 File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/soyc/SoycDashboard.java (right): http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/69801/diff/1001/2027#newcode77 Line 77: + "java com.google.gwt.soyc.SoycDashboard options stories0.xml[.gz] [dependencies0.xml[.gz]] [splitpoints0.xml[.gz]])"); Even if it's invoked with the legacy syntax, the supplied resources directory is ignored in this patch as it stands. Can we live with that? This arrangement should cover any normal use case where a report is generated from cron or as part of a continuous build, because the argument just specifies a prebuilt gwt-soyc-vis anyway. However, developer setups will be broken for people developing on SOYC; I was hoping both of those people could simply deal with the break. :) Is there anyone else being broken if we stop supporting -resources? I can implement support for -resources if there's a reason. Can we live without it? http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/69801/diff/1001/2020 File tools/soyc-vis/build.xml (right): http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/69801/diff/1001/2020#newcode18 Line 18: <fileset dir="${gwt.root}/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/soyc/resources"/> On 2009/09/28 17:22:00, kathrin wrote: > Should this be here or rather in the dev's build file? I was thinking here, for the following reasons. First, the *output* is going into gwt-soyc-vis.jar, even though the input comes from dev. Second, eventually gwt-soyc-vis.jar should go away. I've been trying to move things around so that when we're ready to do that, tools/soyc-vis can simply be deleted. http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/69801/diff/1001/2020#newcode18 Line 18: <fileset dir="${gwt.root}/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/soyc/resources"/> I was thinking here, mainly because the *output* is used to build gwt-dev-soyc.jar. Additionally, gwt-dev-soyc.jar should eventually go away. At that point, it's a little cleaner if we can simply remove tools/soyc-vis and don't also need to update the dev build file. http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/69801 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
