You're correct, in more complex environments where a more robust property provider is necessary, my approach wouldn't do much good. But then, I'm not talking about handling those use cases. The goal is to not make an unnecessary request, and if I have the user agent in the server on the initial request, I know everything that the vanilla property-provider uses, unless I'm mistaken.
Also, when I was referring to generating the code I was talking about at GWT compile time. On Mar 24, 4:10 am, Olivier Monaco <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Nathan, > > How do you determine the right permutation for the client? Using the > User-Agent? What if I change it? How to provide custom property- > provider? > > An example: we wrote a GWT/SVG library that use svgweb on browser not > supporting SVG. We have a property-provider that determine if the > browser support SVG using the JavaScript method > "document.implementation.hasFeature". There's no way to do it on > server. > > Next, code can't be on-fly-generated because ~some~ compilation can > take more than 30 seconds, even for just on permutation. > > Olivier > > > > > > > On 23 March 2010 14:41, Nathan Wells <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Is there a reason you wouldn't want to determine which permutation to > > > > > send on the server rather than the client? What I'm thinking is that > > > > > you could eliminate the need for the selector script entirely if you > > > > > had a smart enough server. You could even auto generate the code using > > > > > a linker, I would think. > > > > > > So, is there a reason why you wouldn't want to do it? -- 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.
