On 2011/05/20 14:48:29, rjrjr wrote:
Meh, that's a lot of work for not a lot of gain.
Exactly, which is why I never moved it.
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 <mailto: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, <mailto: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://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1446807/ -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
