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. > 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
