Great thought.
It could save me some hours/days of modeling the Config Object in java.
On the other hand my Config Object is strictly typed with all the usual
benefits.
On the other hand (apparently the discussion requires 3 hands :) my java
Config Object is not complete. I have defined only
regarding 1) It would be nice to initialize Objects from json. What would
happen if the json text specifies members not in class though?
You could always do this, if you just need to pass something to JavaScript
and do not need to read it...
@JsType(isNative=true, name="JSON",
> package xxx;
>
> import jsinterop.annotations.JsFunction;
>
> @JsFunction
> public interface Callback {
> void call(Object event);
> }
>
If the JS library does not pass totally different JS objects into the
callback but instead something that is worth defining as a class you can
use
I don't think his problem was the callback. This is easily jsinteropified
with @JsFunction.
I think his problem was initializing Object with json
Vassilis
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Kirill Prazdnikov
wrote:
> What prevents you using a proper JsType for callback
What prevents you using a proper JsType for callback arg ?
public interface Callback {
void call(ArgT event);
}
@JsType
inerface ArgT {
@JsProperty A getA();
@JsProperty B getB();
// e.t.c
}
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT
Users"
I had this problem with DataTables Config. DataTables is a nice javascript
library for tables https://datatables.net/ and Config is the initialization
object like yours. So here is what I did:
@JsType(isNative = true, namespace = JsPackage.GLOBAL, name = "Object")
public static class
Hi all,
I have recently started testing JsInterop for our GWT 2.8.1 application and
I have encountered a situation I could not solve without using the old
style JSNI approach.
Consider the following minimal JS library I would like to use in Java/GWT:
(function (window, document, undefined) {