Sourcemaps with sso linker

[Dmitry Skavish]

hi everybody,

I could not figure out how do I build my app and generate sourcemap
url into js file along with all the sources. Anybody can shed some
light here?

That's what I did:

1. I added 
to my module and now I have sourcemaps generated.

2. Now if I want to use it I need to manually add the path to the map
to my generated js file, something like that:

//# 
sourceMappingURL=../WEB-INF/deploy/playerDebug/symbolMaps/AE31C96E973F2818434AA5B24477E385_sourceMap0.json

3. Adding the path gives me the mapping to java classes, but since
there is no sources available it's kind of useless. How do I specify
path to the sources? Is there anyway I can add it to js file?

Is there anyway to automate step 2?

Note that I am just opening the module's html in browser as local
file, not via webserver.

thanks!

-- 
Dmitry Skavish

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [gwt-contrib] Adding @JsFunction to java.util.function JRE Emulation?

[David Becker]

Well bummer.  Thanks for the detailed info.  Perhaps someday it can check 
if they do directly extend Object or not and either take the shortcut or 
the long way...  I'm afraid that's way over my depth in the GWT code to 
attempt a patch though.

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 6:07:15 PM UTC-7, Ray Cromwell wrote:
>
> The issue is that @JsFunction implementors must "extend 
> java.lang.Object" as their parent. because standard library functions 
> are/canbe implemented on classes with complicated type hierarchies, 
> this would cause failures to compile. 
>
> This restriction comes about from the efficiency trick we use to 
> reparent a lambda to have the native JS Function object as it's 
> parent. We can't reparent objects whose immediate supertype isn't 
> java.lang.Object, but not doing this trick would make output more 
> bloated/slow, and wouldn't allow Java8 lambas to act like JS functions 
> (e.g. can call Function.bind/apply/etc on them) without some kind of 
> wrapping/unwrapping process, plus an additional level of hacks to make 
> sure referential integrity was preserved. 
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Colin Alworth  > wrote: 
> > No, its not a solution, so much as a "here is a workaround that might 
> > satisfy your specific case as you build your JsInterop-based lib so that 
> it 
> > looks like it can use @FunctionalInterface types". I do not believe it 
> to be 
> > a comprehensive way to provide the feature requested. At some point I'll 
> try 
> > to write it out in more detail in case there is any actual merit to it 
> (I'm 
> > all but sure that there isn't, or you would have thought of it already). 
> > 
> > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 7:47 PM 'Goktug Gokdogan' via GWT Contributors 
> >  wrote: 
> >> 
> >> We cannot impose @JsFunction restrictions on standard library 
> >> @FunctionInterfaces. You can see some of the limitations in the 
> Javadoc. 
> >> 
> >> @Colin: I didn't understand your solution. Feel free to propose 
> something 
> >> more concrete and we can discuss over that. 
> >> 
> >> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Colin Alworth  > wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> Unfortunately, you can't add the annotation to an interface with more 
> >>> than one method, even if those methods are default methods, at least 
> as it 
> >>> is currently implemented. 
> >>> 
> >>> I can't remember the exact specifics around why this is the case, but 
> >>> believe it has to do with handling functions passed from js into java, 
> and 
> >>> not being able to nicely handle instances that decide to override 
> those 
> >>> other methods as well. 
> >>> 
> >>> You could nearly achieve this effect by just making a method reference 
> to 
> >>> the "apply" or "test" method, and passing that as an actual JsFunction 
> type. 
> >>> I don't right away see a problem with syntactic sugar doing this 
> >>> automatically, but am sure that someone will be able to enlighten us 
> as to 
> >>> what confusing side effects this might have (or alternately confirm 
> that 
> >>> this is a great idea, and point to where in the compiler the changes 
> need to 
> >>> be made). 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Wed, May 11, 2016, 6:15 PM David Becker  > 
> >>> wrote: 
>  
>  I think it would be good to add @JsFunction to all of the 
>  java.util.function interfaces in the JRE Emulation so that we can use 
>  standard function signatures with JsInterop. 
>  
>  Would that work?  Any drawbacks? 
>  
>  If you think that's a good idea, I can submit a patch. 
>  
>  Thanks! 
>  
>  -- 
>  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>  Groups "GWT Contributors" group. 
>  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
> send 
>  an email to 
> google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . 
>
>  To view this discussion on the web visit 
>  
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/13df9bed-108f-4cdf-8c00-123f1186e461%40googlegroups.com.
>  
>
>  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
> >>> 
> >>> -- 
> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups 
> >>> "GWT Contributors" group. 
> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an 
> >>> email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> . 
> >>> 
> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> >>> 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/CADcXZMzaxRmFrvZUkQMG0VQETyJo5TWmjtFqPsn3msrBBvvLGg%40mail.gmail.com.
>  
>
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups 
> >> "GWT Contributors" group. 
> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop 

Re: [gwt-contrib] Adding @JsFunction to java.util.function JRE Emulation?

['Ray Cromwell' via GWT Contributors]

The issue is that @JsFunction implementors must "extend
java.lang.Object" as their parent. because standard library functions
are/canbe implemented on classes with complicated type hierarchies,
this would cause failures to compile.

This restriction comes about from the efficiency trick we use to
reparent a lambda to have the native JS Function object as it's
parent. We can't reparent objects whose immediate supertype isn't
java.lang.Object, but not doing this trick would make output more
bloated/slow, and wouldn't allow Java8 lambas to act like JS functions
(e.g. can call Function.bind/apply/etc on them) without some kind of
wrapping/unwrapping process, plus an additional level of hacks to make
sure referential integrity was preserved.




On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Colin Alworth  wrote:
> No, its not a solution, so much as a "here is a workaround that might
> satisfy your specific case as you build your JsInterop-based lib so that it
> looks like it can use @FunctionalInterface types". I do not believe it to be
> a comprehensive way to provide the feature requested. At some point I'll try
> to write it out in more detail in case there is any actual merit to it (I'm
> all but sure that there isn't, or you would have thought of it already).
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 7:47 PM 'Goktug Gokdogan' via GWT Contributors
>  wrote:
>>
>> We cannot impose @JsFunction restrictions on standard library
>> @FunctionInterfaces. You can see some of the limitations in the Javadoc.
>>
>> @Colin: I didn't understand your solution. Feel free to propose something
>> more concrete and we can discuss over that.
>>
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Colin Alworth  wrote:
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, you can't add the annotation to an interface with more
>>> than one method, even if those methods are default methods, at least as it
>>> is currently implemented.
>>>
>>> I can't remember the exact specifics around why this is the case, but
>>> believe it has to do with handling functions passed from js into java, and
>>> not being able to nicely handle instances that decide to override those
>>> other methods as well.
>>>
>>> You could nearly achieve this effect by just making a method reference to
>>> the "apply" or "test" method, and passing that as an actual JsFunction type.
>>> I don't right away see a problem with syntactic sugar doing this
>>> automatically, but am sure that someone will be able to enlighten us as to
>>> what confusing side effects this might have (or alternately confirm that
>>> this is a great idea, and point to where in the compiler the changes need to
>>> be made).
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 11, 2016, 6:15 PM David Becker 
>>> wrote:

 I think it would be good to add @JsFunction to all of the
 java.util.function interfaces in the JRE Emulation so that we can use
 standard function signatures with JsInterop.

 Would that work?  Any drawbacks?

 If you think that's a good idea, I can submit a patch.

 Thanks!

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups "GWT Contributors" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/13df9bed-108f-4cdf-8c00-123f1186e461%40googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "GWT Contributors" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>> email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/CADcXZMzaxRmFrvZUkQMG0VQETyJo5TWmjtFqPsn3msrBBvvLGg%40mail.gmail.com.
>>>
>>>
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "GWT Contributors" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/CAN%3DyUA0CktOO8rpggbAcfPyTPhP7bp3fOTZgxSZiWyGq09waBw%40mail.gmail.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "GWT Contributors" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> 

Re: [gwt-contrib] Adding @JsFunction to java.util.function JRE Emulation?

[Colin Alworth]

No, its not a solution, so much as a "here is a workaround that might
satisfy your specific case as you build your JsInterop-based lib so that it
looks like it can use @FunctionalInterface types". I do not believe it to
be a comprehensive way to provide the feature requested. At some point I'll
try to write it out in more detail in case there is any actual merit to it
(I'm all but sure that there isn't, or you would have thought of it
already).

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 7:47 PM 'Goktug Gokdogan' via GWT Contributors <
google-web-toolkit-contributors@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> We cannot impose @JsFunction restrictions on standard library
> @FunctionInterfaces. You can see some of the limitations in the Javadoc.
>
> @Colin: I didn't understand your solution. Feel free to propose something
> more concrete and we can discuss over that.
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Colin Alworth  wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, you can't add the annotation to an interface with more
>> than one method, even if those methods are default methods, at least as it
>> is currently implemented.
>>
>> I can't remember the exact specifics around why this is the case, but
>> believe it has to do with handling functions passed from js into java, and
>> not being able to nicely handle instances that decide to override those
>> other methods as well.
>>
>> You could nearly achieve this effect by just making a method reference to
>> the "apply" or "test" method, and passing that as an actual JsFunction
>> type. I don't right away see a problem with syntactic sugar doing this
>> automatically, but am sure that someone will be able to enlighten us as to
>> what confusing side effects this might have (or alternately confirm that
>> this is a great idea, and point to where in the compiler the changes need
>> to be made).
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016, 6:15 PM David Becker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think it would be good to add @JsFunction to all of the
>>> java.util.function interfaces in the JRE Emulation so that we can use
>>> standard function signatures with JsInterop.
>>>
>>> Would that work?  Any drawbacks?
>>>
>>> If you think that's a good idea, I can submit a patch.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "GWT Contributors" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>>> .
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/13df9bed-108f-4cdf-8c00-123f1186e461%40googlegroups.com
>>> 
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "GWT Contributors" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/CADcXZMzaxRmFrvZUkQMG0VQETyJo5TWmjtFqPsn3msrBBvvLGg%40mail.gmail.com
>> 
>> .
>
>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "GWT Contributors" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/CAN%3DyUA0CktOO8rpggbAcfPyTPhP7bp3fOTZgxSZiWyGq09waBw%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 
Contributors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/CADcXZMwvRokmP5nq84jmE40Dmos3eMmPDH-V4RcCz-%2BjbubvxQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [gwt-contrib] Adding @JsFunction to java.util.function JRE Emulation?

['Goktug Gokdogan' via GWT Contributors]

We cannot impose @JsFunction restrictions on standard library
@FunctionInterfaces. You can see some of the limitations in the Javadoc.

@Colin: I didn't understand your solution. Feel free to propose something
more concrete and we can discuss over that.

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Colin Alworth  wrote:

> Unfortunately, you can't add the annotation to an interface with more than
> one method, even if those methods are default methods, at least as it is
> currently implemented.
>
> I can't remember the exact specifics around why this is the case, but
> believe it has to do with handling functions passed from js into java, and
> not being able to nicely handle instances that decide to override those
> other methods as well.
>
> You could nearly achieve this effect by just making a method reference to
> the "apply" or "test" method, and passing that as an actual JsFunction
> type. I don't right away see a problem with syntactic sugar doing this
> automatically, but am sure that someone will be able to enlighten us as to
> what confusing side effects this might have (or alternately confirm that
> this is a great idea, and point to where in the compiler the changes need
> to be made).
>
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2016, 6:15 PM David Becker 
> wrote:
>
>> I think it would be good to add @JsFunction to all of the
>> java.util.function interfaces in the JRE Emulation so that we can use
>> standard function signatures with JsInterop.
>>
>> Would that work?  Any drawbacks?
>>
>> If you think that's a good idea, I can submit a patch.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "GWT Contributors" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/13df9bed-108f-4cdf-8c00-123f1186e461%40googlegroups.com
>> 
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "GWT Contributors" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/CADcXZMzaxRmFrvZUkQMG0VQETyJo5TWmjtFqPsn3msrBBvvLGg%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 
Contributors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/CAN%3DyUA0CktOO8rpggbAcfPyTPhP7bp3fOTZgxSZiWyGq09waBw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [gwt-contrib] Adding @JsFunction to java.util.function JRE Emulation?

[Colin Alworth]

Unfortunately, you can't add the annotation to an interface with more than
one method, even if those methods are default methods, at least as it is
currently implemented.

I can't remember the exact specifics around why this is the case, but
believe it has to do with handling functions passed from js into java, and
not being able to nicely handle instances that decide to override those
other methods as well.

You could nearly achieve this effect by just making a method reference to
the "apply" or "test" method, and passing that as an actual JsFunction
type. I don't right away see a problem with syntactic sugar doing this
automatically, but am sure that someone will be able to enlighten us as to
what confusing side effects this might have (or alternately confirm that
this is a great idea, and point to where in the compiler the changes need
to be made).

On Wed, May 11, 2016, 6:15 PM David Becker  wrote:

> I think it would be good to add @JsFunction to all of the
> java.util.function interfaces in the JRE Emulation so that we can use
> standard function signatures with JsInterop.
>
> Would that work?  Any drawbacks?
>
> If you think that's a good idea, I can submit a patch.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "GWT Contributors" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/13df9bed-108f-4cdf-8c00-123f1186e461%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 
Contributors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/CADcXZMzaxRmFrvZUkQMG0VQETyJo5TWmjtFqPsn3msrBBvvLGg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[gwt-contrib] Adding @JsFunction to java.util.function JRE Emulation?

[David Becker]

I think it would be good to add @JsFunction to all of the 
java.util.function interfaces in the JRE Emulation so that we can use 
standard function signatures with JsInterop.  

Would that work?  Any drawbacks?

If you think that's a good idea, I can submit a patch.

Thanks!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 
Contributors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/13df9bed-108f-4cdf-8c00-123f1186e461%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Jsni replacement in 2.8?

[Ali Akhtar]

Is Jsni going to be deprecated / removed?

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 3:23 AM, Jens  wrote:

>
> How much of that has been implemented?
>>
>
> Everything in the 1.0 spec should work in 2.8 SNAPSHOT.
>
> -- J.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "GWT Users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/google-web-toolkit/FbwB4x8jSE8/unsubscribe
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Jsni replacement in 2.8?

[Jens]

> How much of that has been implemented?
>

Everything in the 1.0 spec should work in 2.8 SNAPSHOT. 

-- J.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Jsni replacement in 2.8?

[Ali Akhtar]

How much of that has been implemented? Are there any examples of it working
anywhere?

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 2:44 AM, Michael Zhou 
wrote:

> Take a look at the official JsInterop 1.0 specs:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/10fmlEYIHcyead_4R1S5wKGs1t2I7Fnp_PaNaa7XTEk0/view
>
> On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 5:27:04 PM UTC-4, Ali Akhtar wrote:
>>
>> In GWT 2.8, what should be used in place of Jsni methods? Such as for
>> integrating a 3rd party js library? There was very sparse documentation
>> available for JsInterop last time I checked, are there any more docs
>> available now?
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "GWT Users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/google-web-toolkit/FbwB4x8jSE8/unsubscribe
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Jsni replacement in 2.8?

[Michael Zhou]

Take a look at the official JsInterop 1.0 
specs: 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10fmlEYIHcyead_4R1S5wKGs1t2I7Fnp_PaNaa7XTEk0/view

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 5:27:04 PM UTC-4, Ali Akhtar wrote:
>
> In GWT 2.8, what should be used in place of Jsni methods? Such as for 
> integrating a 3rd party js library? There was very sparse documentation 
> available for JsInterop last time I checked, are there any more docs 
> available now?
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Jsni replacement in 2.8?

[Ali Akhtar]

In GWT 2.8, what should be used in place of Jsni methods? Such as for 
integrating a 3rd party js library? There was very sparse documentation 
available for JsInterop last time I checked, are there any more docs 
available now?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: jsinterop: create cast native types: JavaScriptObject

[Vassilis Virvilis]

Thanks Paul,

In retrospect this is obvious which means I would never figured it out by
myself :-)

I will test it tomorrow.

Shouldn't this trick documented in
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10fmlEYIHcyead_4R1S5wKGs1t2I7Fnp_PaNaa7XTEk0

Thanks again.


On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Paul Stockley  wrote:

> Declare your objects as
>
> @JsType(isNative = true, namespace=JsPackage.GLOBAL, name="Object")
>
> You can then just use new.
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 11:16:07 AM UTC-4, Vassilis Virvilis wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> I am trying to construct with jsinterop a json config object for
>> datatables. Here is an example
>>
>> var table = $wnd.$(table_selector).DataTable({
>> "dom" : 'lf<"dateRange"><"pull-right"B>rtip',
>> "serverSide" : true,
>> "ajax" : {
>> "url" : ajax_url,
>> "dataSrc" : "",
>> "data" : {
>> "date" : "date_range"
>> }
>> },
>> "columns" : headers,
>> "buttons" : [ 'copyHtml5' ]
>> });
>>
>> The idea is to use something like that
>>
>>@JsType(isNative = true)
>> public static class Config {
>>
>> @JsType(isNative = true)
>> public static class Ajax {
>>
>> @JsType(isNative = true)
>> public static class Data {
>> String date;
>>
>> @JsOverlay
>> public static Data create() {
>> final Data data = createDataObject();
>> data.date = "date_range";
>> return data;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> String url;
>> String dataSrc;
>> Data data;
>>
>> @JsOverlay
>> public static Ajax create(String url) {
>> final Ajax ajax = createAjaxObject();
>> ajax.url = url;
>> ajax.dataSrc = "";
>> ajax.data = Data.create();
>> return ajax;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> String dom;
>> boolean serverSide;
>> Ajax ajax;
>> JsArray columns;
>> JsArrayString buttons;
>>
>> @JsOverlay
>> public static Config create(String url,
>> JsArray headers) {
>> final Config config = createConfigObject();
>> config.dom = "lf<'dateRange'><'pull-right'B>rtip";
>> config.serverSide = true;
>> config.ajax = Ajax.create(url);
>> config.columns = headers;
>> config.buttons = createJsArrayString("copyHtml5");
>> return config;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Something similar (but simpler) is done for vue.js here
>> https://gist.github.com/bduisenov/2c5ef0e4ff4874f2c5d2
>>
>> Unfortunately the Datatables are picky and they are poking (iterating)
>> the Config object in the wrong way and they hit the __proto__ and
>> constructor members and the script crashes.
>>
>> So I had to specify  @JsType(isNative = true) to match the naming and a
>> way to start from a plain javascript plain object {}
>>
>> The question is how to create and cast in a generic way a {} in my native
>> objects i.e.
>> Config, Config.Ajax, Config.Ajax.Data?
>>
>> I tried
>> 1) Config config = new Config(); // protected empty constructor - fails
>> at runtime
>>
>> 2) Config config = createConfig();
>>
>> private static native Config createConfigObject()/*-{
>> return {};
>> }-*/;
>>
>> This works but I have to create one static function for every native Type
>> I need to create;
>>
>> 3) Config config = createObject();
>>
>> private static native  T createObject()/*-{
>> return {};
>> }-*/;
>>
>> fails at runtime
>>
>> 4) Config extends JavascriptObject and use .cast() - fails at compile time
>>
>> Is any of the 1, 3, 4 supposed to work?
>>
>>Vassilis
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Vassilis Virvilis
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "GWT Users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Vassilis Virvilis

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 

Re: Dear GWT

[Ali Akhtar]

I'm sure. In 2.8 beta1, everytime a new class is added, or a new uiBinder 
file, it requires a restart in order for it to be detected and not get a 
weird error like $mg_1 not found

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Dear GWT

[Vassilis Virvilis]

Are you sure?

It doesn't do that for me. I need to restart sdm when the classpath changes
but that's a rare event.

   Vassilis

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:12 AM, Ali Akhtar  wrote:

>
>
> 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "GWT Users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Vassilis Virvilis

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Dear GWT

[Ali Akhtar]

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: MaterialSearch - issues

[Mike Warne]

*** Did I post the issues in the wrong forum? ***

Yes, this is probably the wrong forum.
GWT-MaterialDesign is not part of GWT.

https://gitter.im/GwtMaterialDesign/gwt-material

MIke.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: MaterialModal in gwt-material-1.5.0.jar

[Mike Warne]

You should probably try posting the the GWT-MaterialDesign Gitter forum:

The developers, and other users should be able to respond to your issue.

https://gitter.im/GwtMaterialDesign/gwt-material


Mike.

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: GWT Material Design Addins

[Paul Stockley]

I would post to either the G+ group 
(https://plus.google.com/communities/108005250093449814286) or gitter 
(https://gitter.im/GwtMaterialDesign/gwt-material?source=suggested-menu)

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 12:07:09 PM UTC-4, Velusamy Velu wrote:
>
> I followed these steps to use the MaterialWindow addin from the 
> gwt-material-addins-1.5.0.jar in an application.
>
>1. Downloaded gwt-material-addins-1.5.0.jar and added to application's 
>build path in Eclipse.
>2. Added the line  in the ..gwt.xml
>3. Added the line 
>xmlns:ma="urn:import:gwt.material.design.addins.client" in the 
>UiBinder.
>4. Then started adding the line "window" width="50%" title="Documents"> in the UiBinder 
>
> But MaterialWindow is not visible to the UiBinder.  Any idea what could be 
> wrong?
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

GWT Material Design Addins

[Velusamy Velu]

I followed these steps to use the MaterialWindow addin from the 
gwt-material-addins-1.5.0.jar in an application.

   1. Downloaded gwt-material-addins-1.5.0.jar and added to application's 
   build path in Eclipse.
   2. Added the line  in the ..gwt.xml
   3. Added the line xmlns:ma="urn:import:gwt.material.design.addins.client"
in the UiBinder.
   4. Then started adding the line  in the UiBinder 
   
But MaterialWindow is not visible to the UiBinder.  Any idea what could be 
wrong?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: jsinterop: create cast native types: JavaScriptObject

[Paul Stockley]

Declare your objects as 

@JsType(isNative = true, namespace=JsPackage.GLOBAL, name="Object")

You can then just use new.

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 11:16:07 AM UTC-4, Vassilis Virvilis wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> I am trying to construct with jsinterop a json config object for 
> datatables. Here is an example
>
> var table = $wnd.$(table_selector).DataTable({
> "dom" : 'lf<"dateRange"><"pull-right"B>rtip',
> "serverSide" : true,
> "ajax" : {
> "url" : ajax_url,
> "dataSrc" : "",
> "data" : {
> "date" : "date_range"
> }
> },
> "columns" : headers,
> "buttons" : [ 'copyHtml5' ]
> });
>
> The idea is to use something like that
>
>@JsType(isNative = true)
> public static class Config {
>
> @JsType(isNative = true)
> public static class Ajax {
>
> @JsType(isNative = true)
> public static class Data {
> String date;
>
> @JsOverlay
> public static Data create() {
> final Data data = createDataObject();
> data.date = "date_range";
> return data;
> }
> }
>
> String url;
> String dataSrc;
> Data data;
>
> @JsOverlay
> public static Ajax create(String url) {
> final Ajax ajax = createAjaxObject();
> ajax.url = url;
> ajax.dataSrc = "";
> ajax.data = Data.create();
> return ajax;
> }
> }
>
> String dom;
> boolean serverSide;
> Ajax ajax;
> JsArray columns;
> JsArrayString buttons;
>
> @JsOverlay
> public static Config create(String url,
> JsArray headers) {
> final Config config = createConfigObject();
> config.dom = "lf<'dateRange'><'pull-right'B>rtip";
> config.serverSide = true;
> config.ajax = Ajax.create(url);
> config.columns = headers;
> config.buttons = createJsArrayString("copyHtml5");
> return config;
> }
> }
>
> Something similar (but simpler) is done for vue.js here 
> https://gist.github.com/bduisenov/2c5ef0e4ff4874f2c5d2
>
> Unfortunately the Datatables are picky and they are poking (iterating) the 
> Config object in the wrong way and they hit the __proto__ and constructor 
> members and the script crashes.
>
> So I had to specify  @JsType(isNative = true) to match the naming and a 
> way to start from a plain javascript plain object {}
>
> The question is how to create and cast in a generic way a {} in my native 
> objects i.e.
> Config, Config.Ajax, Config.Ajax.Data?
>
> I tried
> 1) Config config = new Config(); // protected empty constructor - fails at 
> runtime
>
> 2) Config config = createConfig();
>
> private static native Config createConfigObject()/*-{
> return {};
> }-*/;
>
> This works but I have to create one static function for every native Type 
> I need to create;
>
> 3) Config config = createObject();
>
> private static native  T createObject()/*-{
> return {};
> }-*/;
>
> fails at runtime
>
> 4) Config extends JavascriptObject and use .cast() - fails at compile time
>
> Is any of the 1, 3, 4 supposed to work?
>
>Vassilis
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Vassilis Virvilis
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

jsinterop: create cast native types: JavaScriptObject

[Vassilis Virvilis]

Hi,


I am trying to construct with jsinterop a json config object for
datatables. Here is an example

var table = $wnd.$(table_selector).DataTable({
"dom" : 'lf<"dateRange"><"pull-right"B>rtip',
"serverSide" : true,
"ajax" : {
"url" : ajax_url,
"dataSrc" : "",
"data" : {
"date" : "date_range"
}
},
"columns" : headers,
"buttons" : [ 'copyHtml5' ]
});

The idea is to use something like that

   @JsType(isNative = true)
public static class Config {

@JsType(isNative = true)
public static class Ajax {

@JsType(isNative = true)
public static class Data {
String date;

@JsOverlay
public static Data create() {
final Data data = createDataObject();
data.date = "date_range";
return data;
}
}

String url;
String dataSrc;
Data data;

@JsOverlay
public static Ajax create(String url) {
final Ajax ajax = createAjaxObject();
ajax.url = url;
ajax.dataSrc = "";
ajax.data = Data.create();
return ajax;
}
}

String dom;
boolean serverSide;
Ajax ajax;
JsArray columns;
JsArrayString buttons;

@JsOverlay
public static Config create(String url,
JsArray headers) {
final Config config = createConfigObject();
config.dom = "lf<'dateRange'><'pull-right'B>rtip";
config.serverSide = true;
config.ajax = Ajax.create(url);
config.columns = headers;
config.buttons = createJsArrayString("copyHtml5");
return config;
}
}

Something similar (but simpler) is done for vue.js here
https://gist.github.com/bduisenov/2c5ef0e4ff4874f2c5d2

Unfortunately the Datatables are picky and they are poking (iterating) the
Config object in the wrong way and they hit the __proto__ and constructor
members and the script crashes.

So I had to specify  @JsType(isNative = true) to match the naming and a way
to start from a plain javascript plain object {}

The question is how to create and cast in a generic way a {} in my native
objects i.e.
Config, Config.Ajax, Config.Ajax.Data?

I tried
1) Config config = new Config(); // protected empty constructor - fails at
runtime

2) Config config = createConfig();

private static native Config createConfigObject()/*-{
return {};
}-*/;

This works but I have to create one static function for every native Type I
need to create;

3) Config config = createObject();

private static native  T createObject()/*-{
return {};
}-*/;

fails at runtime

4) Config extends JavascriptObject and use .cast() - fails at compile time

Is any of the 1, 3, 4 supposed to work?

   Vassilis






-- 
Vassilis Virvilis

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.