> > I believe Google builds applications that use Elemental and/or JsInterop, > so they don't use c.g.g.dom.DOM or any other thing that inherits UserAgent. > Goktug also pointed out earlier in this thread "cross-compiled apps" where > the UI is built with Closure Library. I suspect this might be the case of > Google Drive (Spreadsheets) where GWT is only used to compile to JS those > bits of Java that are shared with the server, Android app and iOS app > (through J2ObjC); from what I understood, in Spreadsheets that would be the > code necessary to parse and evaluate formulas. >
Thanks for the examples. Such cross compiled apps probably doesn't have the concept of permutations but they maybe also want to support older browsers. Wouldn't it make sense then to have something like Core.gwt.xml which is strictly modern, and CoreWithLegacySupport.gwt.xml which inherits Core and introduces runtime feature checks here and there? That way such apps don't have to pull in UserAgent at all and its probably more straight forward than saying: "If you need legacy support then inherit core, useragent and possibly collapse all properties if you want a single permutation". Also GWT would have the control how it provides legacy support and far in the future if GWT only has a modern and a legacy permutation then Core could provide the modern permutation while CoreWithLegacySupport introduces the legacy permutation and UserAgent maps all the user agents to modern or legacy. -- J. -- 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/74f12c72-4e7e-4167-b60e-564448d5d918%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
