> > If I knew JavaScript and DOM, or, for that matter, even WANTED to know > > JavaScript and DOM, I wouldn't be using GWT, I'd be writing the > > JavaScript myself. No? > > No. > > Abstractions do not work for these kind of things.
It's not a matter of abstractions, it's a matter of explanations. IMAO, the JavaDoc for a KeyPressEvent should tell you exactly what that event IS. And what's the difference between it and the other Key*Events. It shouldn't be that hard, after all the person writing the code had better know the answer to that question, no? Google has detailed requirements for the format of any code submitted to be part of GWT. How about a requirement that the documentation attached to the code actually has to provide some value, too? And I think you're confusing this post (about trying to figure out which event to use) with my other post (where the tutorial code for getting an enter key doesn't work). The point of THIS thread is that the people writing "documentation" for a lot of the GWT routines seem to assume that everyone using GWT spends as much time reading W3C documentation as the doc writers do, and as such they end up writing documentation that is worthless until you go read the W3C docs (or come here and beg for information). The further point is that this is a bad assumption on their part, and that it would be good if they stopped writing docs that way. Greg On Dec 4, 6:11 am, Thomas Broyer <[email protected]> wrote: > On 3 déc, 20:50, Greg Dougherty <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Jeff, > > > Thank you. That' lets me know which one I want to use. > > > If I knew JavaScript and DOM, or, for that matter, even WANTED to know > > JavaScript and DOM, I wouldn't be using GWT, I'd be writing the > > JavaScript myself. No? > > No. > > Abstractions do not work for these kind of things. GWT is no different > from jQuery, Prototype.js and others in this respect: it tries to hide > browser discrepancies, but that doesn't mean you're freed from knowing > them (or least that they exist). > What GWT gives you that JavaScript doesn't is that it's Java, i.e. you > can reuse some code between your (Java) server and client, you benefit > from Java's static typing (which among other things make refactoring > efficient), you benefit from the tools from the Java world. > (don't put words in my mouth though: there are drawbacks to using Java > compared to JavaScript, they're two different languages, each with > their own strengths) > > > The whole point of using something like GWT is that it lets a Java > > programmer write a web app w/o having to learn all the crap that > > normal web app writers have to wade through. That's certainly why I > > spent the time and effort to learn GWT. For that matter, I presume > > that the people writing things like the KeyPressEventHandler DO know > > JavaScript and DOM. So, really, how hard is it for them to put that > > knowledge into the documentation? Isn't that what the documentation > > is THERE for? > > The problem is that key/char event is a real mess! > All browsers behave differently (though WebKit is really close to IE). > Different successive versions of a given browser don't behave the > same. The same version of a given browser behave different on > different platforms. > It's hard (if ever possible!) to build an API with a consistent > behavior. > See for instance, and amongst > many:http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=72http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=1061http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=1529http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=4092 -- 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.
