Stephen, I came up with the same idea. We are working on a rather large GWT project, and the speed of dev mode is atrocious (30-45 second refresh on an i7 with 32GB ram). I understand why GWT compiles the way it does for production mode, but it seems it seems incredibly inefficient to have to basically go through the whole refresh every time a relatively small change occurs. I am way over my head when it comes to understanding the compiler, but I was thinking along the lines of something like annotation processors that would essentially generate a whole bunch of code to support dev mode that would prevent having to do all this oracle building each time.
Something like this couldn't come fast enough, as far as I'm concerned. Just wanted to voice my agreement and support. If you need a tester, let me know. Josh On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:18:15 PM UTC-5, Stephen Haberman wrote: > > Hey, > > Since Thomas brought up changes to dev mode, I've been thinking about > how to implement an incremental dev mode. > > After playing with SuperDevMode, it is better (no extensions/etc.), but > AFAICT it still starts over from "let's build a ResourceOracle", "now > let's build a TypeOracle", etc. > > Seems like we should be able to reuse ResourceOracle, TypeOracle, etc., > instances across compiles. And really, have the notion of invoking GWT > dev mode compiles go away altogether. E.g. hook into Eclipse, and > during auto builds have the JS files on disk just magically get updated > after each save. > > I've been spiking an Eclipse plugin, which seems not as hard as I > thought it would be, which incrementally generates .jribble files > as .java/.class files change, with the idea of not embedding ecj > anymore. That's a slightly separate topic though. > > The only thing that seems impossible with incremental compiles is > preserving the semantics that code generators see--currently they are > very deterministic/batch, and this would change all of that. But for > the better, I think. > > (It would invert how GWT currently works--it's a batch system that > sometimes we force (badly) to be incremental, to being an incremental > system which sometimes you could run in batch (on the CLI).) > > Does this seem terribly egregious? I think if it worked, it would > result in dramatic productivity improvements--the goal would be > "faster than coffeescript" (or whatever) compiles, and truly instant > refreshes after making changes. > > - Stephen > -- -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit Contributors" group. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
