Thanks for the feedback. On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Ming-Yee Iu <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, ok. Thanks. > > Just in terms of general feedback on Elemental2: > > 1. I'm not sure whether the conversion of JavaScript properties to Java > fields is the best choice. Sure, it "feels" more like the original > JavaScript, but > > a) it's inconsistent with Java semantics, > This could be a stylistic inconsistency not a semantic one. All arguments that I have seen in favor for having accessors instead of fields are inapplicable to Elemental fields since they all assume changes in the implementation of accessors which in our case always a pass through. However I am aware of the stylistic expectation from some java devs and we might end up providing setter/getter as overlays for people who would like to stick conventional style. > b) I'd be afraid that a Java compiler might apply some unexpected > optimization there as a result, > I don't think that's possible. > c) it's harder to mock the behavior of the classes for unit tests > Actually a field doesn't require mocking; but native accessor as you are proposing does require mocking. > and d) alternate implementations of Elemental2 aren't possible (for > example, I couldn't make a DevMode-like JavaFx version of Elemental2 like I > did with Elemental 1). > I can see how accessor can help with this as it gives you more flexibility on your re-implementation of the API. > > 2. Personally, I would prefer if Elemental 2 used interfaces over classes > (for similar reason as above), though I understand that being able to use > "new ...()" syntax on things is nice too. > That is more than that: https://groups.google.com/d/ topic/google-web-toolkit-contributors/L6uh96NcZtE/discussion > > 3. The number of callback classes is out-of-control. Can they be > consolidated somehow? > > Hopefully next release will cleanup plenty of them. > 4. Also, is it possible to supplement the typing information for some of > those callbacks from Typescript? Everyone knows that "onclick" handlers > pass a MouseEvent. I'm not sure if Closure has a rich enough type system or > is sufficiently well-developed to generate the best API there. > The language gap between TypeScript and Java is actually higher than Closure and Java. That makes it harder to precisely mimic type info that exists in d.ts via Java abstractions. Hopefully we could make this work better over time. > > 5. Can there be some magic that makes elemental2.Iterable<T> a real Java > Iterable? > We can probably do something here. Will track that issue. > > Otherwise, it seems nice. I like that there's a NodeList<T> now! > > -- > 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/ms > gid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/cb2a997b-2d25-43c0-911a- > ba13a448e14e%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/cb2a997b-2d25-43c0-911a-ba13a448e14e%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%3DyUA39_gq7ZyFujZsjq_YkOXP_T%3Dd42H64zpUcgm_BZJaLoA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
