On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 8:32:34 AM UTC-4, Paul Stockley wrote: > > You are putting words in my mouth. Try reading my comment again. All I > said was the approach we took was a lot faster and resulted in smaller code > size, both of which are true. > Where did I do that? I noted that you cannot compare approaches that don't yield equal amounts of functionality. I proved that these are apples and oranges.
> I would suggest you gather up support from everyone who still wants RPC > and start planning to build an alternative. It sounds like you have lots of > ideas how to make a better version. Talk is cheap, why not make something > happen. > > Try reading my comments again. I never tried to avoid work. The problems are that the effort really should be centralized to maximize benefit and, more critically in this case, it is *not possible for anyone* to make RPC work without appropriate hooks in the compiler. Quoting myself, excerpts from different posts: - If you are so hung up on removing GWT RPC, do so, but provide the means to replace all of its functionality externally, especially serialization - Community can only do it if the foundation allows it. - It isn't so much that this "creates incompatibility" as much that it doesn't even begin to allow it in a remotely reasonable way - Yes. So, what we'd need is that this is at least allowed. -- 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/5a6e3d99-90b5-494a-b413-fd2734014246%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
