void pause();
public void resume();
public void cancel();
}
I think that maybe consolidating timers into this mix might be a bit much,
but, then again, if we're graduating Command to core, then it seems like
it would be nice to make it the uniform callback interface.
-- Bruce
On Thu, Sep 3
I think I'd rather look at any such work as orthogonal perf metrics data
gathering since it is really is, functionally, an independent question of
the log level. For example, we might want to see the effect of logging
itself on the speed of hosted mode refresh.
I think some sort of separate global
into gwt-exporter (and then rolling that sort of
functionality directly into GWT proper) will get us pretty far down the
road.
Code review request forthcoming, possibly tomorrow.
-- Bruce
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit
UiBinder templates easy breezy, and we hope other IDEs will do the same.
-- Bruce
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 11:32 AM, SonyMathew xsonymat...@gmail.com wrote:
One point I have tried injecting into the GWT community is the
importance of fluent APIs. GWT's Java API is currently quite
cumbersome
Any numbers, by the way, on the before/after effects?
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 2:54 PM, sp...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: scottb,
Description:
Tracks nullness within the compiler by adding a JNonNull type.
See http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=1819 .
Please
and have the view instantly updated?
Other kool features might include save the file etc.Some of the extra
features in interface builder.
Thoughts...?
On 26/08/2009, at 2:14 AM, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote:
Hi Sony,
I just wanted to clarify that UiBinder is based on XHTML not merely
LGTM, but would be nice to tweak the instructional message.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/56817/diff/1/2
File dev/oophm/src/com/google/gwt/dev/OophmHostedModeBase.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/56817/diff/1/2#newcode321
Line 321: Please connect a browser with the GWT
LGTM if you implement all the suggestions.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/57802/diff/1001/54
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/cfg/BindingProperty.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/57802/diff/1001/54#newcode73
Line 73: return conditionalValues;
Better to make it
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 12:55 PM, b...@google.com wrote:
@Bruce, does the following work for you?
set-property name=compiler.emulatedStack value=true,false
any
when-property-is name=user.agent value=ie6 /
when-property-is name=user.agent value=ie8 /
/any
LGTM, pending an LGTM on the other conditional property patch
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/56816/diff/1/6
File user/src/com/google/gwt/junit/JUnit.gwt.xml (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/56816/diff/1/6#newcode34
Line 34: !-- TODO(bobv): This is temporary until
a patch for changes along these lines?
-- Bruce
=== Actual log below ===
Compiling module com.google.gwt.sample.hello.Hello
Compiling 9 permutations
Worker permutation 0 of 9
Creating Split Point Map file for SOYC
Done
Permutation took 294 ms
Worker permutation 1 of 9
Exactly :-)
On Wednesday, August 12, 2009, Joel Webber j...@google.com wrote:
Makes sense to me. So the first one will be gwt-2.0.0-m0, right?
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote:
Mostly, this writeup is aimed at people who have been working on GWT's own
, Joel Webber j...@google.com wrote:
Makes sense to me. So the first one will be gwt-2.0.0-m0, right?
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote:
Mostly, this writeup is aimed at people who have been working on GWT's
own build-related stuff, but if anyone else has
Senator Blum,
Do you mean disturbing as in
1) revolting,
2) distressing, or
3) disordering?
It seems that mathematics has successfully survived similar notational
issues, such as the whole X vs. X' thing.
Willing to give it a chance?
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Scott Blum
, naysayers?
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:49 PM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote:
Senator Blum,
Do you mean disturbing as in
1) revolting,
2) distressing, or
3) disordering?
It seems that mathematics has successfully
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/57810
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
There's sometimes an important difference between the kind of object model
that is appropriate to send to the client and one you'd use on the server.
That's the reason we haven't historically tried to make it easier to do
no-brainer sharing of server-side object models to the client (i.e.
because
code to ignore non-digit prefixes and suffixes.)
Thus, by simply following this convention when we set GWT_VERSION in the
continuous build, everything should work just fine.
-- Bruce
P.S. No, Joel, we can't start counting at 0, even though it makes more sense
:-) I can read your mind
Let me play devil's advocate, at least against the idea of returning the
string directly. I fear that making this value easily accessible will
encourage people to write conditional tests all over the place, which is
brittle (i.e. because we're very subtly locked into particular user.agent
values)
2 requests is very impressive, Arthur! This is the sort of conscientiousness
(i.e. for optimizing user experience) I hope all GWT developers would strive
for. Nice work.
And yes, we'd like to help you get that down to 1, too.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Arthur Kalmenson
just not understanding what you
mean.
2 requests is very impressive, Arthur! This is the sort of
conscientiousness
(i.e. for optimizing user experience) I hope all GWT developers would
strive
for. Nice work.
And yes, we'd like to help you get that down to 1, too.
Thanks Bruce! But it's
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Lex Spoon sp...@google.com wrote:
One place I would quibble about is compiler transforms that we
consider to be optimizations, because an optimization should preserve
behavior. Thus, a test case should not have any easy way to be
sensitive to the choice.
things
to be giving attention to so that we can get GWT 2.0 out. If we need to
revisit these issues in the future, we certainly can.
-- Bruce
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Ed post2edb...@hotmail.com wrote:
class HandlerManagerSource { ... }
Interesting how you put Generics
Dead! (for now)
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Ed post2edb...@hotmail.com wrote:
Then I would declare it dead Bruce!
With all do respect: I do very complex things with GWT and do walk on
his boundaries...
And to my experience - I am a bit lonely out here... (yes I know
it sounds
We're shooting for a milestone drop in a few weeks, and we're planning
for an RC by the end of the quarter. But, you know how predicting
dates goes...
On 8/4/09, Claudemir Todo Bom claude...@gmail.com wrote:
is there an ETA for 2.0?
On Aug 4, 10:42 am, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
How
Although it feels less convenient, the async nature of RPC is actually
valuable for usability. It forces you to think about what to do in the
application UI while a potentially long-running activity is taking place.
When you consider that a network round-trip combined with time spent on the
server
Because it's easy to bikeshed: can we make the -soyc (-soycExtra) flag more
like -style in that it has multiple values rather than having two separate
flags? Or is there a rationale for this style that I'm missing.
When Bob V's permutation control changes land, we want to make all of this
sort of
Based on what you said, I like a lot as is. Thanks for explaining it.
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Lex Spoon sp...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Bruce Johnsonbr...@google.com wrote:
Because it's easy to bikeshed: can we make the -soyc (-soycExtra) flag
more
like
I prefer Unknown because it's an indication you are looking at suboptimal
stack trace output. JavaScript makes it sound like we actually intend for
you to be looking at that output, when in fact, you really want to use
symbol maps to reverse lookup the Java idents.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:42 PM,
, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote:
4 cheers for Bob! w00t, w00t, w00t and w00t.
Also, note that this is phase 1 in a larger plan. For Bob's next feat of
magic, he's going to provide better control over permutations, allowing you
to, say, include the (expensive) stack
Fantastic!
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
WAHOO!
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Amit Manjhi amitman...@google.comwrote:
Thanks Scott. Commited the changes at r5844 with a fix the first thing and
a TODO for the second thing.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at
Yes, I think we would want to. My point is that we also would want to run
the non-instrumented code. I have to think there could be subtle downstream
behavioral differences (e.g. compiler optimizations that do/don't happen)
based on whether the stack trace code is generated. Thus, I'm saying we
.
Download here:
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/downloads/list?can=1q=GWT+1.7.0
Cheers,
Bruce, on behalf of your friendly GWT Team
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google Web Toolkit group
@Scott: Hasn't there been a subtle shift in this regard? With GWT 1.5,
didn't we conclude that loading classes at least for annotations would make
the most sense?
I think now that we have enhanced the CCL, for deRPC, to delegate to grey
area classes that aren't strictly in the client space, maybe
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Scott Blum sco...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:46 PM, BobV b...@google.com wrote:
Should running a web-mode test case always turn on the emulated stack
trace code?
Would always on mean that it generates code even for browsers that have
native
, this is just a bugfix release, so in the vast
majority of cases, the update-recompile process should be nearly effortless.
Download here:
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/downloads/list?can=1q=GWT+1.7.0
Cheers,
Bruce, on behalf of your friendly GWT Team
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:11 AM, kpro...@google.com wrote:
I see two options: a) a
full-blown query language (far off, but would be very cool), or b) a UI
driven by use cases and/or specific questions, which we spell out
explicitly for the user, either in the UI itself or else in an
Just looked at some of the option avaliable, I think i'm going to add
options into a stackpanel then putting the tabl panel and stackpanel
into a dock panel. Just wondering how to incorporate it so everything
looks awhole is it all done through a CSS?
Instead of having the tabs in a tab panel alight to the top left
corner, is there anyway to align them to the right?
(not right hand corner but to the right-hand side)
Kinda like what they're doing right now with this discussion group...?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
I can't the eclipse pligin to instal... i keep getting this error!
http://i616.photobucket.com/albums/tt248/chukkii_2009/error-1.jpg
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google Web Toolkit group.
To post
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Scott Blum sco...@google.com wrote:
Lots. Like, a whole lot. I had a measurement at one time but lost them.
:( Would take a while to remeasure.
Sold.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Lex Spoon sp...@google.com wrote:
Thoughts? The main downside I know of is the one John Tamplin has
pointed out: if there are multiple runAsync calls within a single
class -- as sometimes happens -- then the programmer has to code up
some new classes that
=compiler.splitpoint.initial.sequence
value=MyModule#one /
extend-configuration-property name=compiler.splitpoint.initial.sequence
value=ThirdParty#one /
Cam
2009/6/25 Lex Spoon sp...@google.com
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Lex Spoonsp...@google.com wrote:
Overall, unless I missed something,
Okay, Bruce
I guess the compiler would have to verify that each call to runAsync uses a
unique moniker - is there anything else ?
I think that's it. Pretty easy to check, and pretty easy for a developer to
reason about, too.
Must the moniker class exists in your own module ?
I don't think it ought to
the next most derived provider for this same
property.
-- Bruce
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Freeland Abbott fabb...@google.comwrote:
Revision to the concept, for design review: See
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/wiki/DefaultLocaleBinding, but
the short-and-sweet
It couldn't have been that easy. Surely someone disagrees?
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:57 AM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Freeland Abbott fabb...@google.comwrote:
I like the general idea, yes.
A complication is that one of the changes John asked for,
Reviewers: scottb, amitmanjhi,
Description:
This patch treats any GWTTestCase-derived classes that return 'null'
from getModuleName() as if they were simply pure Java tests.
Why does this matter? Suppose you're writing tests for code that has
both a pure Java implementation and a super-sourced
Thanks, r5617.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:23 PM, amitman...@google.com wrote:
LGTM with one inline comment and one design question Is it better to
have a special case handling of null or is it better to introduce a
default non-null value for this purpose?
Great writeup. Thanks for bringing some organization to the thread. I agree
with you that #1 seems overall best after the analysis.
Now can we bikeshed about the annotation name? @RunAsyncName() seems harder
to understand than something that says code splitting, such as
@SplitPointName(Foo). After
+1 Ian! Great point. Not sure why we didn't think of that before.
On Monday, June 22, 2009, Ian Petersen ispet...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Lex Spoonsp...@google.com wrote:
The options I see are:
1. Annotate the surrounding method with something like
to ship
libraries with split points. Again, using interfaces guarantees we don't
introduce a new axis of name conflict.
-- Bruce
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Ian Petersen ispet...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Lex Spoonsp...@google.com wrote:
This looks like
OK, I hate to answer my own question, but I think I found how to solve
question #2 - which more or less solves Question #1 (although if anyone has
another technique I'd love to hear about it). So, if anyone else is
researching this - here's a solution to maintaining cell sizing after hiding
its
copy prop:
b.A = 10
t1 = b
b.B = 20
t2 = b
b.C = 30
After dead code elimination:
b.A = 10
b.B = 20
b.C = 30
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Bruce Johnsonbr...@google.com wrote:
Re: Wave access, I was really mostly just being playful, but I'll most
certainly beg and plead
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Ray Cromwell cromwell...@gmail.com wrote:
One of the things that interested me about the potential of building a
limited whole-program CFG was the ability to aggressively (and correctly)
prune clinits. Now, if the eager clinit hoisting is acceptable, than this
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Ray Cromwell cromwell...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruce, By type cloning, do you mean using typeflow information to compute
a set of types for a given reference, and then speculatively type
tightening?
I'm talking about something else, but you're right about
Stefan, if it's really urgent, I would suggest just forking JsArray into
your own project packages for a while. They're simple enough that it won't
be much trouble to unfork when something better comes along -- the
collections I have in mind for core GWT are a little more ambitious, and so
they
at 11:11 PM, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote:
We've known for a while that the GWT compiler is spammy, even at default
log levels. There is a reason for this behavior, believe it or not:
TypeOracle's JClassType#getSubtypes() call. Because generators can ask for
the subtypes of any type
+1 to field overlays. Just need to schedule the work.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:23 AM, BobV b...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Joel Webberj...@google.com wrote:
I'm assuming we'd have to rewrite new and field access operators to these
classes in the hosted-mode
I'm starting to make a bit o' progress on this. I'll send out a design doc
real soon now.
BTW, anyone on the Contributors list here have Wave sandbox accounts? Sure
would be easier to discuss this in a wave...
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Stefan Haustein haust...@google.comwrote:
Ray,
I
, What on earth does NumberFormat_fr_Test.java
have to do with my compiling Hello.java?
-- Bruce
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
No, it's not checked in yet, but I think Joel might started a branch to land
it before t long.
It isn't literally the same code as in Wave, but it's logically equivalent.
Joel can say a lot more about it than me.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 5:36 PM, dflorey daniel.flo...@gmail.com wrote:
Is
that a few
key use cases are sufficiently high performance.
-- Bruce
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 10:12 AM, John LaBanca jlaba...@google.com wrote:
We'll definitely keep these things in mind when moving stuff over to GWT
trunk. We've also found a lot of general usability problems, such as the
fact
Yes, please do create an issue for it, and reply to this thread with the
issue id.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Damon Lundin damon.lun...@gmail.comwrote:
I don't expect this to necessarily be done any time soon, but is there
anything I need to do to make sure that it doesn't get lost?
I like what jat said. Freeland?
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 5:33 PM, j...@google.com wrote:
The alternative to this would be Bruce's suggestion of defining a
specific fallback value for a selection property rather than using
config properties for it. That would narrow the scope to exactly what
Please also look at the compiled JS. I think the less restrictive bound will
cause the compiler to generate worse code (e.g. dynamic casts in some or all
contexts) which would make it a non-starter.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Stefan Haustein haust...@google.com wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to
What you describe, Ray, is definitely going to happen. It has to. I have
begun a design doc for that very thing. I'll float it for comments as soon
as I'm finished with the first draft.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Ray Cromwell cromwell...@gmail.com wrote:
In particular, I use my own
Sounds like an easy patch waiting to be made? Takers?
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Freeland Abbott fabb...@google.com wrote:
Since we later use outFile.setLastModified(artifact.getLastModified()),
thus ensuring equality, yeah, that = is wrong
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Joel
Hi Gary,
We're happy to share both of those. In fact, neither one of those is really
considered proprietary; it's more just that they aren't really generalized
properly for widespread use. We'll put them in trunk as soon as time allows
(which is likely on the order of weeks at a minimum).
On
='com.extjs.gxt.ui.rebind.core.BeanModelGenerator'/
[ERROR] Class
com.extjs.gxt.ui.client.data.BeanModelLookup not found.
It looks like it's a problem with your module declarations but without
more details I can't be sure.
Cheers,
Salvador
On Apr 18, 1:22 pm, bruce bruce.gao@gmail.com
Any numbers on the amount of improvement?
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 11:04 AM, r...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: spoon, kprobst, scottb,
Description:
This patch incorporates Kathrin's StringBuilder work along with other
miscellaneous speedups found by using JProfiler.
Please review this at
The difference is in how your string is created.
I would make a guess that getValue() returns null at some point and
the call to toString() generates a NPE type error in javascript.
Concatenation like in your second snippet, will create a new string
and concatenate the return of getValue(). Null
candidate for 1.6.5?
On Thursday, May 14, 2009, knor...@google.com wrote:
LGTM++
A few new spacing issues showed up. It could be tabs.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/33808/diff/1005/1007
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/linker/IFrameTemplate.js (right):
It's worth mentioning that, while this algorithm is surely a lot slower than
before, it won't slow down HashMap, which already has a fast-path for string
keys that does not actually use hashCode().
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:33 PM, amitman...@google.com wrote:
LGTM except the simple changes for
We do expect to start moving a cluster of the most popular widgets from the
incubator into the GWT trunk this quarter, so things like the paging table,
etc. will almost certainly be in the next GWT major release.
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 1:53 AM, Gilles B gilles.broch...@gmail.com wrote:
I am
It seems like the general functionality (i.e. GWT.isLiteral()) ought to be
implemented at the same time as method cloning. That's what makes me excited
about the whole thing. Otherwise, at least for me, it's hard to wrap my head
around how you could usefully emit different code for the same method
have thoughts.
-- Bruce
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Would you be willing to drop a before and after example of the output
for those of watching from the stands?
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Freeland Abbott fabb...@google.com wrote:
Thanks. Typo fixed, submit at r5269.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Lex Spoon sp...@google.com wrote:
setName(String name) {
someLogger.log(setName(' + name + ') called);
super.setName(name);
}
...
}
As formulated above, this pattern doesn't compose well. But it might be that
we can forge a pattern like this into something everyone likes eventually.
-- Bruce
This makes unit testing
No update yet, unfortunately. We have to get ourselves organized again now
that GWT 1.6 is out the door, and then we'll have a better idea of when it
will be available.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:54 AM, Gary Miller miller.ga...@gmail.comwrote:
Any news on when UiBinder will be available to the
It still sounds to me like the route Scott suggested and Bob agreed with
would be better, so as to avoid the whole issue of re-lexing the JS during
link.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 1:19 AM, Vitali Lovich vlov...@gmail.com wrote:
Should've mentioned this in the original post, but probably the
.
No promises, but it's worth noting that trunk is quite stable these days.
Teams within Google are using the trunk all the time, so we have an
incentive to keep it stable on average.
-- Bruce
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit
w00t! Vacation commits FTW! (Just kidding; @Scott: please rest)
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Scott Blum sco...@google.com wrote:
FYI: I just committed the last of my outstanding memory work to trunk. Lex
kindly agreed to watch the build and do a roll-back for me if something
breaks.
language on App Engine: Java
http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2009/04/seriously-this-time-new-language-on-app.html
Google Plugin for Eclipse -- Peanut Butter to Eclipse's Chocolate
http://googlewebtoolkit.blogspot.com/2009/04/google-plugin-for-eclipse-peanut-butter.html
-- Bruce, on behalf
@Bob: Kudos for fixing this instead of just observing the problem and moving
on. You rock for setting this kind of example.
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1:52 PM, codesite-nore...@google.com wrote:
Author: b...@google.com
Date: Tue Apr 7 10:47:05 2009
New Revision: 5193
Modified:
language on App Engine: Java
http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2009/04/seriously-this-time-new-language-on-app.html
Google Plugin for Eclipse -- Peanut Butter to Eclipse's Chocolate
http://googlewebtoolkit.blogspot.com/2009/04/google-plugin-for-eclipse-peanut-butter.html
-- Bruce, on behalf
Sounds pretty useful. We should lock its behavior down more, though. Maybe
just
deprecated superceded-by=othermodule/
where superceded-by is optional.
It would be helpful to have consistent-looking deprecation messages, so we
probably shouldn't leave the text open-ended.
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 1:35 PM, BobV b...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote:
Sounds pretty useful. We should lock its behavior down more, though.
Maybe
Locking it down is just going to get in the way because we can't cover
all
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:17 PM, BobV b...@google.com wrote:
I'm thinking of the case that I have where transitioning from
ImmutableResourceBundle to ClientBundle could use some documentation
to indicate where there have been changes.
So how about use this instead and more information here
(BTW, I could be wrong about the whole let's not have freeform text. It
was just one guy's opinion that it makes things too inconsistent. I'd like
to hear if other people agree/disagree.)
@Other people: agree/disagree?
Assuming people do agree that it's a bit better to avoid freeform text, then
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:51 PM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote:
(BTW, I could be wrong about the whole let's not have freeform text. It
was just one guy's opinion that it makes things too inconsistent. I'd like
to hear
Let's not add this extra type JsArrayBase into the hierarchy. Why can't we
just push the various methods down? We can always factor upward in the
future. If we need shared implementation, we can factor that out into a
package-private JsArrayImpl class.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Freeland
on this.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Scott Blum sco...@google.com wrote:
I'm going to punt this review to Bruce Kelly, 'cause I have no idea why
having JsArrayBase would be bad. :)
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Freeland Abbott
gwt.team.fabb...@gmail.com wrote:
Scott, we
This stuff sucks. Revert it.
Just kidding. wt!
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 7:31 PM, BobV b...@google.com wrote:
After 16+ months of on-and-off development, ClientBundle (nee
ImmutableResourceBundle) is moving to GWT trunk.
$ find
which makes me think it's related to that new functionality. (Of course,
either way, this looks like it could be a bug in the new helpful class
loading logic.)
-- Bruce
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Alejandro D. Garin aga...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
I have problems creating a new project
A great idea, and it's something Bob Vawter has been pushing for for ages
now. We do need to add some new architecture to make it possible. It might
be possible to hack it in by doing weird with generators and linkers working
in concert, but realistically, the right way will take a good bit of
blog post
with an overview of the features in GWT 1.6 should be just around the
corner.
-- Bruce, on behalf of the GWT team
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google Web Toolkit group.
To post to this group
blog post
with an overview of the features in GWT 1.6 should be just around the
corner.
-- Bruce, on behalf of the GWT team
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Thomas Broyer t.bro...@gmail.com wrote:
a) use a GWT Linker [1,2] to prepend scripts dependencies (script/
in your modules' gwt.xml) to the selection script; the problem is that
the selection script isn't (shouldn't be) cached, so it should remain
as small as
Bob has started the process of landing ClientBundle (the fancy new name for
IRB) into the GWT trunk, so this kind of functionality will have a proper
ongoing home sooner rather than later.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 9:08 PM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote:
John Labanca demo'd image transforms
nice!
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 7:30 PM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote:
This patch, relative to trunk r4993, adds support for the HostedMode target
for OOPHM. There is a lot of duplication still between OOPHM and non-OOPHM,
but I didn't think it was worth the trouble of separating it out
101 - 200 of 247 matches
Mail list logo
