On 2011/08/03 20:03:28, rjrjr wrote:
Oh, and putClientData seems like a better name.
Done
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Ray Ryan <mailto:rj...@google.com>
wrote:
> I'm still not crazy about having addClientData() and getClientData()
on
> separate objects. It seems to me that you've violated your own
principal
> that the GeneratorContext should be the only object that has to get
passed
> to the generator's helpers. > > Can addClientData() move to the context? That would require
getClientData()
> to be able to retrieve both cached and freshly added data. Is that > practical? Sounds like it would be hugely convenient. >
I'm not sure I see why it makes sense for it not to be part of the cached result. It is indeed closely associated specifically with that previously generated result. By keeping it as part of the cachedResult, it makes one less thing that needs to be passed around internally to the generator (only the context needs to be passed around). The context is specific to the currently running generator environment, and generally gets reset for each generator invocation. Adding more data to the context requires more api and more things for the context to keep track of (currently it just keeps track of a CachedRebindResult object, which it would still need to do). Maybe there's a better name than "clientData" here, suggestions? It's specific to a generator run invoked that was invoked with the same rebind rule and requested type name as are currently in effect. But it's historical data, and in fact is not essential at all to the generator (if it's not there, the generator will run to completion). http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1468804/ -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
