On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Stephen Haberman <[email protected] > wrote:
> > For me it would be totally fine to have a plugin for FF15 and then > > for FF20 and the next for FF25 which would reduce your maintaining > > work. Same for Chrome. > > I hold off on updating FF as well, but I believe a lot of users got > antsy about "oh noes! the latest FF isn't supported, GWT is deadz!" > before Brian got on top of the FF plugin process. FF clearly wants to get rid of all binary plugins, yet they also have no interest in exposing the sort of hooks we would need to use pure-JS plugins. Chrome has some issues, but with the fork of WebKit, perhaps the identity and performance issues can be addressed -- at least part of the reluctance about doing anything more came from the convoluted path from JS code to V8. I know it takes a lot of effort to keep the FF plugins up to date (I did it for a while myself), but I think that cost is less than the cost of losing a usable DevMode. > Totally agreed. I think that should be our goal--getting to GWT to the > point where it can integrate sexily with today's/tomorrow's web > developer tool chain (JS debuggers, etc.). > I think the problem is that the technology to make SuperDevMode even close to as useful as debugging in the JVM doesn't exist yet, and it's not clear when it will exist. I have no problem working towards that goal, but in the meantime you can't be talking about ditching what works great now. SDM is nice, but it still feels like the limited experience of debugging a JS app rather than having the tools available for debugging in the JVM. -- John A. Tamplin -- -- 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 and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
