On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 4:10:12 PM UTC+2, Jens wrote:
>
>
> var _symbol$bar = Symbol("Foo.bar");
>> class Foo {
>> async getBar() { // Note: transformed to 'async', no 'synchronized'
>> if (this[_symbol$bar] == null) {
>> var realBar = …;
>> this[_symbol$bar] = await realBar.get(); // transformed to await
>> }
>> return this[_symbol$bar];
>> }
>> }
>>
>
> I think this isn't even correct, because "async getBar()" does return a
> promise simply because its marked async. Given that you can only call await
> inside async functions I think its nearly impossible to map that to a
> synchronous Java function while keeping the correct return type or am I
> missing something?
>
That was part of Ian's proposal (emphasis mine):
“If it makes it all the way to a function exposed with JsInterop, then *that
function changes signature like the rest of them to return a promise*. The
consumer of this function is obviously in JS and so can handle the promise
fine. This would equate to translating the synchronous java calls which
wait on a CompletableFuture (Promise) to return promises in JS.”
--
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.
