Nnnnnnnnevermind. I think it's too late for me to make this not-terribly-popular change. It's already more widely adopted than I realized internally, so I have to assume that's even more true externally. I can't imagine such a break being well received.
(Yes, we're making more significant changes to RequestFactory in 2.1.1, but I suspect that has a lower adoption rate so far, and client side the impact is actually fairly minimal, except for the dropped UserInfo stuff.) rjrjr On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Thomas Broyer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wednesday, December 8, 2010 8:22:39 PM UTC+1, John A. Tamplin wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Ray Ryan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Basically we don't know exactly how we want to change the thing, but have >> a feeling something will be needed. Re: composition or delegation, it always >> happens, but I'm not sure that's a concrete issue yet. We could introduce an >> IsActivity interface, but I don't see anywhere in the current GWT code we >> would actually call it. People implement their own ActivityMappers by hand, >> so they could use that convention themselves. >> >> Sounds like there aren't super strong feelings on this, so today for 2.1.1 >> I'm inclined to >> >> - drop the interface >> - rename AbstractActivity to Activity >> - document as being forbidden from developing any non-trivial behavior >> - and perhaps document the intent to retroactively introduce an >> interface when it's had a chance to settle >> >> Last passionate objections? >> > > I still feel like there is little cost in having the interface, which is > what is used in the API, and a default implementation where any new methods > added will get default behavior. Then document that if you implement the > interface but don't extend the default implementation, you will be broken by > future updates. That lets users decide whether they care more about not > being broken by updates or more about not having to extend a base class. > > > +1 > > Though I'm OK with the proposed (abstract)Activity and SimpleActivity (i.e. > just make Activity an abstract class rather than an interface –with all > methods being abstract– and rename AbstractActivity into SimpleActivity, > rather than just renaming the current AbstractActivity to Activity, with the > no-op methods) > > -- > http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
