Yeah, agreed; we will very likely need a cleaner plate so it is ok from my side for the IsXXX interfaces. If nobody else has any other concerns, I recommend you to start with an example interface to get early feedback and iterate from there.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Stephen Haberman <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi, > > Bringing this up again, but I'd like to submit a CL that moves the > IsButton, IsListBox, etc., interfaces I've made for Tessell into GWT > itself. IMO they would be useful to users doing MVP. > > I believe the only recent objection was from Goktug, who wanted to take > the opportunity to make the widget API better, more-modern, non-sucky. > > My assertion is that is a perfectly fine goal, but should be done > separately from the IsButton/etc. interfaces I'm proposing. AFAICT > there's no reason we couldn't have IsButton go in today, which matches > the old-school Button API directly, and then eventually have a next-gen > Button/whatever that has a new/better API. > > Also, I would anticipate the newer/better widgets being more of a clean > break anyway, so why not let the old widgets keep their current API, > if now just codified in interfaces? > > Goktug, does that sound okay? Any other concerns? > > - Stephen > > -- > http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "GWT 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. > > > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 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.
