http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1269801/diff/1/4 File plugins/xpcom/FFSessionHandler.h (left):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1269801/diff/1/4#oldcode71 plugins/xpcom/FFSessionHandler.h:71: inline Debug::DebugStream& operator<<(Debug::DebugStream& dbg, JSString* str) { On 2011/01/11 21:02:31, jat wrote:
Why remove this?
JS_GetStringBytes no longer exists, and we need access to the context. AFAIK, this was dead code so rather than shove a context in here I just deleted it. http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1269801/diff/1/5 File plugins/xpcom/JavaObject.cpp (right): http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1269801/diff/1/5#newcode115 plugins/xpcom/JavaObject.cpp:115: if (!JS_DefineFunction(ctx, obj, "toString", JavaObject::toString20, 0, 0)) { On 2011/01/11 21:02:31, jat wrote:
Since we don't ever need both definitions in one executable, would it
be better
to put the #ifdef around the definition of toString/call and just have
the one
version there?
We could do that. I personally find this a little cleaner to read than ifdef'ing over the prototype. I'll change it if you like though--I don't really feel that strongly. http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1269801/diff/1/7 File plugins/xpcom/Makefile (right): http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1269801/diff/1/7#newcode48 plugins/xpcom/Makefile:48: On 2011/01/11 21:02:31, jat wrote:
Extra blank line
fixed. http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1269801/diff/1/12 File plugins/xpcom/install-template.rdf (right): http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1269801/diff/1/12#newcode14 plugins/xpcom/install-template.rdf:14: <!-- TODO: can we add 1.5-2.0 back? Do we care? --> On 2011/01/11 21:02:31, jat wrote:
I think we can remove this line now.
done. http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1269801/show -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
