Except you'd also want to add @JsFunction on Function, Predicate and Supplier to make Optional "useful"; so, no, adding @JsType on Optional is not a good idea (also note that for collections this is only on interfaces; constructors and static fields/methods are all @JsIgnore-d).
When exposing such method to JS, you should IMO return a '@Nullable T' value rather than an Optional<T>. On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 3:34:09 PM UTC+2, Jens wrote: > > As a workaround you can probably copy GWT's Optional emulation into your > own project, add JsInterop annotations and then it should work. > > GWT does not place JsInterop annotations on most JRE emulations because > the compiler only has an "all-or-nothing" switch > (-generatesJsInteropExports). That means all code that can be accessed from > the @JsType annotated class can not be pruned because it might be called by > external JS. So it would result in a final JS code size increase. > > But you can make a feature request on Github, as GWT has @JsType some > Collections: https://gwt-review.googlesource.com/#/c/15191/ > > -- J. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
