http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1521803/diff/1/samples/mobilewebapp/pom.xml
File samples/mobilewebapp/pom.xml (right):

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1521803/diff/1/samples/mobilewebapp/pom.xml#newcode34
samples/mobilewebapp/pom.xml:34: <id>JBoss Repo</id>
On 2011/08/12 22:38:29, rjrjr wrote:
Do you still need this entry?

Done.

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1521803/diff/1/samples/mobilewebapp/pom.xml#newcode73
samples/mobilewebapp/pom.xml:73: </dependency>
On 2011/08/12 22:38:29, rjrjr wrote:
Are user and dev really provided? I thought GPE backs off and relies
on maven to
download them.
GPE does defer to the GWT maven plugin to silently get gwt-dev.jar, but
in this case we want it available to javac to compile the
AppCacheLinker. Of course we do not want it available ar runtime nor to
gwtc (because gwtc gets it in its own way), but Maven is designed to be
coarse grained in this regard. GWTC complains, but this still works.

The scope "provided" means get it, use it to compile (javac), but not
when packaging nor testing. It should prevent gwt-dev.jar from reaching
the war; but a bug in the maven plugin makes it reach the war
nevertheless so we forcibly delete it later.

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1521803/diff/1/samples/mobilewebapp/pom.xml#newcode138
samples/mobilewebapp/pom.xml:138: <!-- Who is this for? What is it? -->
On 2011/08/12 22:38:29, rjrjr wrote:
While you're in here, did you try eliminating this and other "who is"
items?

Done.

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1521803/diff/1/samples/mobilewebapp/pom.xml#newcode174
samples/mobilewebapp/pom.xml:174: <!-- TODO: Who is using this? Is it
just cruft from listwidget? -->
On 2011/08/12 22:38:29, rjrjr wrote:
ditto

Done.

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1521803/diff/1/samples/mobilewebapp/pom.xml#newcode182
samples/mobilewebapp/pom.xml:182: <!-- TODO: Who is using this? Just
GAE? Is anyone, really? -->
On 2011/08/12 22:38:29, rjrjr wrote:
etc.
Yes, this one is used by App Engine

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1521803/diff/1/samples/mobilewebapp/pom.xml#newcode316
samples/mobilewebapp/pom.xml:316: <version>2.7</version>  <!--  Note 2.8
does not work with AspectJ aspect path -->
On 2011/08/12 22:38:29, rjrjr wrote:
We don't care about AspectJ any more, right? Update this?

Done.

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1521803/diff/1/samples/mobilewebapp/src/main/java/com/google/gwt/sample/mobilewebapp/server/domain/Task.java
File
samples/mobilewebapp/src/main/java/com/google/gwt/sample/mobilewebapp/server/domain/Task.java
(right):

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1521803/diff/1/samples/mobilewebapp/src/main/java/com/google/gwt/sample/mobilewebapp/server/domain/Task.java#newcode50
samples/mobilewebapp/src/main/java/com/google/gwt/sample/mobilewebapp/server/domain/Task.java:50:
populateDatastore();
On 2011/08/12 22:38:29, rjrjr wrote:
populateDatastore uses its own emf. Does the one in findAllTasks
actually see
the changes populateDatastore makes -- did you actually see the
samples show up?
Done. EMF is now used as a singleton.

The next step will be to use Locators and ServiceLocators to provide a
more entrerprisey sample. In a future patch, though.

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1521803/diff/1/samples/mobilewebapp/src/main/java/com/google/gwt/sample/mobilewebapp/server/domain/Task.java#newcode69
samples/mobilewebapp/src/main/java/com/google/gwt/sample/mobilewebapp/server/domain/Task.java:69:
EMF emf = new EMF();
On 2011/08/12 22:38:29, rjrjr wrote:
Is all of this new EMF() stuff safe and idiomatic Objectify? We don't
need to
try to use a single EMF per request or something? Sure feels wrong.

Done.

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1521803/diff/1/samples/mobilewebapp/src/main/java/com/google/gwt/sample/mobilewebapp/server/domain/Task.java#newcode232
samples/mobilewebapp/src/main/java/com/google/gwt/sample/mobilewebapp/server/domain/Task.java:232:
public void setVersion(Integer version) {
On 2011/08/12 22:38:29, rjrjr wrote:
I bet you can delete this.

Done.

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1521803/

--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors

Reply via email to