Ok, I can see that for string constants, but what about other scenarios?
classes?
public final class SomeClass { } vs. public class SomeClass { }
object references?
public void doSomething( ) {
final ArrayList<String> list = new ArrayList<String>();
}
vs.
public void doSomething( ) {
ArrayList<String> list = new ArrayList<String>();
}
method args? similar to above:
public void doSomething(final ArrayList<String> list) {} vs. public void
doSomething(ArrayList<String> list) {}
methods?
public final void doSomething( ) {} vs. public void doSomething( ) {}
Regards,
Davis
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Sripathi Krishnan <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes.
>
> If you have something like this - public static final String HELLO =
> "Hello";
> GWTC will get rid of the field in the compiled js, and just inline (i.e.
> "hard-code" ) the value everywhere it is used.
>
> --Sri
>
>
> 2009/11/5 Davis Ford <[email protected]>
>
> Aside from just declaring intent that a field's value isn't supposed to
>> change and generating a compiler error if you assign a new value, some JDKs
>> are known to optimize the bytecode when fields are final.
>>
>> I'm wondering if there is any such value in the translation from Java to
>> JavaScript (i.e. does it translate to const in JS)?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Davis
>>
>>
>>
>
> >
>
--
Zeno Consulting, Inc.
home: http://www.zenoconsulting.biz
blog: http://zenoconsulting.wikidot.com
p: 248.894.4922
f: 313.884.2977
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
