Meh, that's a lot of work for not a lot of gain. Why don't we just move it to user.client.ui, right next to AbstractImagePrototype? I don't see why we'd make it a nested class.
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Ray Ryan <rj...@google.com> wrote: > I was wondering if we should move the code from abstract image prototype > here, make it depend on the renderer. Deferred binding and all. What do you > think? > On May 19, 2011 9:41 PM, <jlaba...@google.com> wrote: > > > > > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1446807/diff/1/user/src/com/google/gwt/resources/client/ImageResourceRenderer.java > > File user/src/com/google/gwt/resources/client/ImageResourceRenderer.java > > (right): > > > > > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1446807/diff/1/user/src/com/google/gwt/resources/client/ImageResourceRenderer.java#newcode21 > > user/src/com/google/gwt/resources/client/ImageResourceRenderer.java:21: > > import com.google.gwt.user.client.ui.AbstractImagePrototype; > > This creates a dependency from gwt.resources to gwt.user. > > > > Maybe we can make this an inner class of AbsractImagePrototype, since > > that is what is uses for the implementation? > > > > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1446807/ > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
