There is also a third option.
User writes:
@JsType(prototype = "Object")interface JsObject {
class prototype extends Prototype_JsObject {}
interface Static {
String[] keys(JsObject obj);
JsObject defineProperties(JsObject obj, JsObject props);
}
static Static getStatic() {
return new Static_JsObject();
}
static JsObject of(Object obj) {
return obj instanceof JsObject ? (JsObject) obj : null;
}
@JsConstructor
void constructor(String param);
boolean hasOwnProperty(String prop);
boolean isPrototypeOf(JsObject prop);
}
which generates:
@PrototypeOfJsType(JsObject.class)public class Prototype_JsObject {
JsObject constructor(String param) { return null;}
boolean hasOwnProperty(String prop) { return false; }
boolean isPrototypeOf(JsObject prop) { return false; }
}
public class Static_JsObject implements Static {
JsObject newInstance(String param) {
return js("new Object($0)", param);
}
public String[] keys(JsObject obj) {
return js("Object.keys($0)", obj);
};
public JsObject defineProperties(JsObject obj, JsObject props) {
...
}
}
And usage looks like:
MyObject extends JsObject.prototype {}
JsObject.getStatic().keys( ... );
JsObject.getStatic().newInstance( ... );
JsObject.of(new Object());
And it is perfectly testable.
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Stephen Haberman <[email protected]
> wrote:
>
> > I will try to summarize my thought process and different options that
> > I have played with so that you could get a better understanding where
> > I'm coming from and I hope it will provide good documentation for
> > future.
>
> Thanks for the email; I think the format was really useful.
>
> > One may argue that if we are committing to use some kind of DSL why
> > not use something else like IDL or xml etc. There are 3 main reasons
> > to use java + APT instead of others:
>
> I really want to advocate APT, as I've used it and do generally like it,
> but frankly it can be a huge PITA for Eclipse. See long-standing issues
> e.g.:
>
> https://github.com/square/dagger/issues/126
>
> Granted, maybe someone can just fix Eclipse, but, in my experience, it
> can really ruin the first impressions for a project (1000s of compile
> errors due to missing generated code, and no hints that, btw, it's
> because the APT was not on the classpath/didn't run).
>
> > All the cons are around the testability aspect. For JRE testing,
> > native methods are a headache. Also we no longer generate an interface
> > for static methods.
>
> I know I just bitched about APT, but, just musing, what if the class
> (with the native methods/etc.) was the DSL the user wrote, and then APT
> just generated an interface from that?
>
> This is basically what I'm doing by hand in tessell with writing
> IsTextBox for TextBox, etc.
>
> I admittedly am not an expert on JS prototype semantics, so am not sure
> how this would handle statics/etc. But in testing I usually only care
> about instance methods anyway...
>
> A few years ago I spiked an APT processor to do this automatically:
>
> https://github.com/stephenh/interfacegen
>
> The oddity then becomes that the user is writing "class JsObject", but
> then if they want testable code, they need to code against the generated
> "IsJsObject" interface. But perhaps that it's optional is a good thing,
> e.g. you could come back and add the "@GenInterface"-type method later
> if/when you wanted.
>
> Anyway, I think I do like the last proposal, the class/native method
> best.
>
> Thanks, Goktug!
>
> - Stephen
>
> --
> 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/20141101102535.45715a48%40sh9
> .
> 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%3DyUA1f8Bvp%3DzDO%3DG0O3nhGBtJeJGgQYAARt7jwJOJVihHVuw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
