Scott says: Stephen misunderstands what Dependencies.apiRefs means (which isn't suprising, it's not well commented).
The simple and qualified references answer the question "What references do I depend on to correctly parse and resolve the source code?" Api refs answer the question "What program elements do I need to construct a TypeOracle representation of this class?" In other words, api refs only include things like superclass, implemented interfaces, method parameter and return types, field types, etc. Things you have to have to construct a valid TypeOracle representation. Method bodies do not contribute to this list at all. Simple and qualified references is generally a superset of that, includes anything references in method bodies. On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Stephen Haberman <[email protected] > wrote: > Hi, > > There was one place in the name mangling that I had to leave an ugly > replacement: > > > https://github.com/stephenh/scalagwt-gwt/blob/embed/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/CompilationStateBuilder.java#L109 > > allValidClasses is by internal name now, but the qualified references > coming from ecj are by source name. > > (Hm, if these are top-level only units, then a simple replacement would > be okay. Does anyone know if that is the case, off the top of their > heads? I'll fire up the debugger later and see if I can tell.) > > But the other reason I ask on the list instead of in the review is that, > for scalagwt itself, I don't have these ecj data structures, so I'm > inferring the simple and qualified refs from the api refs: > > > https://github.com/stephenh/scalagwt-gwt/blob/embed/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/Dependencies.java#L62 > > I'm pretty sure this approach is okay, but my concern is that, poking > around in the debugger, ecj, ends up with a whole lot more strings as > simple/qualified refs than my current, albeit somewhat naive approach > in buildFromApiRefs. > > Given I'd already written buildFromApiRefs, I was tempted to use it > for the .java files as well, since api refs are already internal names, > and then I could remove the source -> internal mangling. But I didn't > have enough confidence to do that just yet. > > If anyone could comment on buildFromApiRefs, both in theory and the > current implementation, just for scalagwt but also whether it's > potentially usable for the java side, I'd appreciate it. > > But I'll nonetheless look into whether the qualifiedReferences are > only top-level units, in which case the name mangling should be okay. > I didn't think of that until just now. > > - Stephen > > > -- > http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
