Static methods on interfaces is a Java8 only feature, but I prefer it.
Since you can use Java8 with GWT even if you are running Java7 or below as
a JVM, and since these features are not for shared code, but for Web code,
I'm kinda leaning towards the idea of JSNI 2.0 requiring Java8. We should
have a debate about this in the community. We get several benefits:
1. Static methods on interfaces
2. Defender methods to implement JSNI fragments on JsTypes
3. APIs designed for Lambdas everywhere.
Here's a motivating usecase right now:
@JsType
interface SomeJsType {
void someMethod();
default void anotherMethod(int arg) {
js("this.doIt($0, "must be present", arg);
}
}
That is, there are some cases in Js interfaces where default prototype
dispatch is not what you want, and you need wrapper code.
Another use case
@JsType
@IterateAsArray(getter = "item", length="length")
interface NodeList<T extends Element> extends Iterable<T> {
T item(int x);
int length();
default Iterator<T> iterator() {
return NodeListIterator(this);
}
}
for (T x : nodeList) { ... }
Are we ballsy enough to say GWT 3.0 = Java8 source level enforced for
client side code?
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 12:38 PM, 'Goktug Gokdogan' via GWT Contributors <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 6:17 AM, Cristian Rinaldi <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Community:
>> I'm playing with JsInterop , and I have two questions:
>>
>> 1) Are you planning to try the static methods of JS objects, such as
>> Object, Promise, etc.?
>>
>
>
> There will be some static helpers provided from the SDK. I originally
> started the JSNI 2.0 document but it is basically waiting for me to start
> on Elemental 2.0 and accumulate more experience to turn it into something
> more concrete.
>
>
>
>> 2) How do when an instance is mapped to an existing Object, eg
>> Promise, has a constructor with parameters?
>>
>>
>
> Actually I have new ideas on this derived from how some other APTs work.
>
> I need to update the JsInterop doc but these are the options that I'm
> thinking right now:
>
> *Option 1 (works better for extending):*
>
> @JsType(prototype = "Promise")public interface Promise {
> /* Protoype_Promise is an autogenerated package visible class */
> public static class Prototype extends Protoype_Promise {
> public Prototype(Function... functions) {
> super(functions);
> }
> }
>
>
> void then(Function f);
>
> void cath(Function f);
> }
>
>
>
> *Option 2 (works better for general use):*
>
> @JsType(prototype = "Promise")public interface Promise {
> /* Protoype_Promise is an autogenerated package visible class */
> public static Promise create(Function... functions) {
> return new Protoype_Promise(functions);
> }
>
>
> void then(Function f);
>
> void cath(Function f);
> }
>
>
>
> *Of course one can do both:*
>
> @JsType(prototype = "Promise")public interface Promise {
>
> public static class Prototype extends Protoype_Promise {
> public Prototype(Function... functions) {
> super(functions);
> }
> }
>
> public static Promise create(Function... functions) {
> return new Prototype(functions);
> }
>
>
> void then(Function f);
>
> void cath(Function f);
> }
>
>
>
>
>> Currently to resolve this 1) I created the following class Factory:
>> JS
>> <https://github.com/workingflows/gwt-jscore/blob/master/src/main/java/com/workingflows/js/jscore/client/factory/JS.java>
>>
>> But the interfaces define a contract at the level instance of a class
>> or object, this way of doing things, I do not know if it is semantically
>> correct.
>>
>> To solve 2) there are not many options:
>>
>> Create a Factory that returns an instance of the object, because it
>> has no meaning, only to make the new, implement the interface, because the
>> compiler already does.
>> There is some progress in this?
>>
>> I saw in one of the post a proposal to do something like this:
>>
>> Promise Promise.Prototype p = new (new Function ....., new Function
>> ....);
>>
>> Where Promise, is the interface defined with prototype = "Promise".
>>
>> @JsType(isNative = true, prototype = "Promise")
>> public interface Promise {
>>
>> void then(Function f);
>>
>> void cath(Function f);
>> }
>>
>> Here 'access to jsCore project:
>>
>> https://github.com/workingflows/gwt-jscore/
>> <https://github.com/workingflows/gwt-jscore/>
>>
>>
> Great work. This kind of stuff is also very valuable as a feedback.
>
>
>> I hope the answers ...
>>
>> greetings
>>
>> --
>> 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/3268ccc7-9953-49c9-9079-574096f0d5d3%40googlegroups.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/3268ccc7-9953-49c9-9079-574096f0d5d3%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
> --
> 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/CAN%3DyUA0ZpjT%2Bf%2ByqbwCHsSSPWaawLtJwf%2BPTTvbd68zE2Oxh%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/CAN%3DyUA0ZpjT%2Bf%2ByqbwCHsSSPWaawLtJwf%2BPTTvbd68zE2Oxh%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
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/CAPVRV7eq1ZNZKCj22mYk9ttKkE%2BammBWuV1KPDN5e%2BM_by5TsQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
