On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:16 AM, John LaBanca <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Ray Ryan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:38 AM, John LaBanca <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I don't think Andrés was asking why they weren't in the gwt package. >>> He's sking why they are in the com.google.web package if they are usable >>> outside of the web domain. It seems like we are moving from a very limited >>> package scope to a slightly less limited package scope. >>> >>> I'm sure you've debated this plenty, but since I'm doing the code review, >>> I have to question the package name com.google.web.bindery. >>> com - okay, off to a good start >>> .google - I like it >>> .web - I agree with Andrés here. Wouldn't a use case be to run this code >>> on the server, or even in an Android app? >>> >> >> You're reading "web" to mean "HTML." I'm reading it as "app that talks to >> a web service, regardless of what it's written in." >> >> >>> It seems like "web" could be dropped, saving 4 bytes in a lot of files. >>> >> >> Not an option, I tried. Creating a new sub-package of com.google is not >> something we can do unilaterally. >> >> >>> .bindery - What's bindery? It sounds like its related to UiBinder, but >>> UiBinder is truly cliient one. Is it the name of the new project? >>> >> >> From the README file that I clearly need to add: >> >> bindery is a minimal open source web app framework for GWT >> with experimental support for JRE clients. It is based around an >> app-wide event bus and and an RPC system especially useful for CRUD style >> apps. >> >> >> The consistent theme of the code in this package is that it allows >> "binding" decoupled systems in a type safe way with a minimum of >> boilerplate. Thus bindery. >> >> >> And yes, it took a very long time to come up with that name. >> > I don't like it. No good reason, it just doesn't have a nice ring to it. > I will give you an alternative in fifteen minutes. > That's a very generous offer. > > >> >>> If you drop "web", we end up with: >>> com.google.gwt - Libraries used to create GWT applications. >>> com.google.bindary - Useful Google Java libraries, but google provides >>> other libraries, so what is bindary's mission? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> John LaBanca >>> [email protected] >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Ray Ryan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> We want to be able to experiment with non-GWT clients of web services, >>>> particularly via RequestFactory. But I have to put emphasis on the word >>>> "experiment." Non-GWT won't be a supported path soon, if ever. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Andrés Testi <[email protected] >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Why bindery package is nested in a web package? Are these APIs not >>>>> available for non web applications? >>>>> Regards. >>>>> >>>>> - Andrés >>>>> >>>>> On 31 mar, 01:19, [email protected] wrote: >>>>> > Ready for review. John, can you keep me honest on the treatment of >>>>> > com.google.gwt.event.shared, and the choices made in the new event >>>>> > package? >>>>> > >>>>> > Bob, does this fit what you have in mind for the bindery >>>>> organization? >>>>> > >>>>> > Note that I've updated Activity and Place to use the new classes, but >>>>> > not RequestFactory. I won't submit this until Dan has his big patch >>>>> in >>>>> > place, and I'll make the RF changes before I do. >>>>> > >>>>> > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1394803/ >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors >>>> >>> >>> >> > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
