I'd rather keep the two samples completely separate, even though that entails a lot of dup code. If I have one app that does both systems, it's really hard to look at the code and know what is relevant to you and what isn't. And it's not like DynaTable gets a lot of changes.
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 10:53 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > There is a lot of copying going here which is bad. Would this be better > done by adding just the new classes to the DynaTable sample, and having > another gwt.xml in the DynaTable sample. The two gwt.xml could then pull > just the subset of files they require. > > > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/710801/diff/4001/5008 > File > > > samples/dynatablerf/src/com/google/gwt/sample/dynatablerf/DynaTableRf.gwt.xml > (right): > > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/710801/diff/4001/5008#newcode20 > > samples/dynatablerf/src/com/google/gwt/sample/dynatablerf/DynaTableRf.gwt.xml:20: > <inherits name='com.google.gwt.rpc.RPC' /> > Why does DynaTableRf still need RPC? It doesn't, thanks. Will fix. > > > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/710801/show > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
