Hasn't been accepted - just opened. Anyone can open issues against GWT.
That being said, I think there could be room for improvement. For instance,
if you specify a serializable interface or serializable abstract class, you
should be allowed to enumerate all the various types that can possibly go
across the wire in an annotation so as to provide more contextual
information that the compiler simply doesn't otherwise have access to at
compile time.
@Transfers({A.class, B.class, C.class, D.class})
Serializable foo(Serializable[] x);
etc. which limits the compiler to only look at A, B, C, & D when it comes
across trying to compile this RPC function.
This would solve a lot of issues & make the expressiveness much more
powerful.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Salvador Diaz <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> Frankly I don't see how that issue could be accepted, the fact that
> you have to mark all your serializable objects as Serializable or
> IsSerializable has been there from the beginning. It's related to the
> way the compiler has to know at compile time what objects are allowed
> to travel through RPCs and how they should be serialized. You simply
> cannot expect it to magically detect the types that will be added to
> your <String, Object> map.
>
> On Apr 16, 10:14 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > I added my concerns to this issue in the gwt issue tracker:
> >
> > http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=3521
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google Web Toolkit" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
