Cool, I've filed http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=6701.
Can I get an LGTM and submit this thing? On Wed Aug 17 09:58:03 GMT-700 2011, Rafael Castro wrote: > Awesome, I like #1 too. I was driving to work this morning and thinking > about it: #2 actually encourages bad behavior, because it'll seem it's OK to > fiddle with the elements between calling bind and attaching, and it's really > not. We _could_ make an effort to make it work, but it's much better to make > the flow clearer this way: if you're using lazy widgets, your elements have > to be lazy too. > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Ray Ryan > <[email protected]<http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=mailto%3Arjrjr%40google.com> > > wrote: > > I like #1 too. I think we should try to narrow the visibility of > PotentialElement as much as we can. > > So #1 means two things , right? > > • Widgets are seated in their @UiFields immediately > • In an IsRenderable owner, Element and subclasses are only available via > LazyDomElement, and @UiField Element is a compile time error > > I've tweaked the test a bit (will update soon), and I'm happy to report > that composites around non-IsRenderables work as expected, with element > fields filled immediately. Given that I don't think we need to delay the > switch to using lazy widget builder by default. > > > On Wed Aug 17 06:14:52 GMT-700 2011, Hermes Freitas wrote: > > WidgetInterpreter and WidgetPlaceholderInterpreter shouldn't output > LazyDomElement. Rafa, do you remember why? I don't think this aggregates any > performance gain for us, am I missing something? > > And I vote for #1 > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Rafael Castro > <[email protected]<http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=mailto%3Ardcastro%40google.com> > > wrote: > > +hermes > > Good point, this is really tricky. The problem here is that we don't > actually have the DOM element until the widget is attached. I see 2 options: > 1-) We force the UiField to be a LazyDomElement, so this is explicit. > 2-) We use PotentialElement with a resolver that throws an Exception (i.e., > it's only really resolved when it's attached). > > what do you think? > > ps.: really nice tests, thanks for putting them together! > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 5:13 PM, > <[email protected]<http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=mailto%3Arjrjr%40google.com> > > wrote: > > On 2011/08/17 00:12:24, rjrjr wrote: > > Ready for review. > > Rafa, this turned up one issue that concerns me: most @UiField fields > are not filled in until the widget is attached to the dom, but we're not > consistent about it. See the big comment in testDeep. > > > http://gwt-code-reviews.**appspot.com/1527804/<http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http%3A%2F%2Fgwt-code-reviews.appspot.com%2F1527804%2F> > > > > > > -- > --Hermes Freitas > > > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
