(I will read & respond to comments after the weekend)
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Goktug Gokdogan <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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%3DyUA30t6RmeVs%3D9XGOp4HU0_u_NYu4J42SYJ9HQnH9PgoXSg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
