On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 4:19:02 PM UTC+2, Thomas Broyer wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.”
>
…and yes, that'd mean that one small change in one class could change the
exposed API from/to a Promise "at the other end" of your project. Good luck
tracking those changes and never introduce a bug because of them ;-)
--
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.
