On Apr 19, 5:48 pm, Thomas Broyer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 11:34 am,ReinierKip<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi,
>
> > I am trying to map existing JavaScript 'classes' in the document to
> > client-side Java classes. Take this example JS 'class':
>
> > Alerter = function() {
> > this.alert = function(msg) {
> > alert(msg);
> > };
>
> > };
>
> > Mapping this to a client-side Java class currently means:
>
> > class Alerter extends JavaScriptObject {
>
> > public static final native Alerter create() /*-{
> > return { impl: new Alerter() };
> > }-*/
>
> You have to write $wnd.Alerter() (unless you only have to support the
> "xs" linker), and why storing it in a property ("impl") of an
> otherwise useless object?
>
>
>
>
>
> > public final native void alert(String msg) {
> > this.impl.alert(msg);
> > // or for repeatability: return this.impl.alert.apply(this,
> > arguments);
> > }
>
> > }
>
> > I feel it should be possible to do this in Java:
>
> > (...)
> > public static final native Alerter create() /*-{
> > return new Alerter();}-*/
>
> > public final native void alert(String msg);
> > (...)
>
> > This directly maps the Java declaration to the JavaScript
> > implementation.
>
> Apart from the "direct mapping", this is already possible (using
> native void alert(String msg) /*-{ this.alert(msg); }-*/; )
>
> AFAICT, this "direct mapping" was part of the original design but no-
> one took the time to implement it, as it's just syntactic sugar (and
> the Google Plugin for Eclipse will now autocomplete it for you!)
> See:http://code.google.com/p/gwt-api-interop/which I believe heavily
> inspired the current design of JSOs in GWT proper.
>
> --
> 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
> athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
Thanks for your reply.
The { impl: * } was just out of fear the javascript object's alert()
would interfere with Java's alert(). I assume Java's alert() is
obfuscated anyway and is accessible through th...@class::method etc...
--
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.
