http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1446812/diff/3002/user/test/com/google/gwt/animation/AnimationTest.gwt.xml
File user/test/com/google/gwt/animation/AnimationTest.gwt.xml (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1446812/diff/3002/user/test/com/google/gwt/animation/AnimationTest.gwt.xml#newcode25
user/test/com/google/gwt/animation/AnimationTest.gwt.xml:25:
<replace-with
class="com.google.gwt.animation.client.testing.StubAnimationSchedulerImpl">
On 2011/05/27 13:47:12, jlabanca wrote:
On 2011/05/27 13:17:02, tbroyer wrote:
> On 2011/05/27 13:07:01, jlabanca wrote:
> > On 2011/05/27 12:11:44, tbroyer wrote:
> > > Would probably be better to somehow "inject" a
StubAnimationScheduler into
> > > Animation, rather than "hack" AnimationScheduler.
> >
> > Agreed if we had an injection framework like gin built in to GWT.
Deferred
> > bindings are the closest thing we have for now.
>
> How about my proposal for "protected AnimationScheduler
getAnimationScheduler()
> { return AnimationScheduler.get(); }" in Animation?
> (which you'd override in TestAnimation in the AnimationTest)
Or maybe a protected constructor that takes an AnimationScheduler
instead?
Works for me.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1446812/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
