(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 4:47 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 if other people agree/disagree.)
@Other people: agree/disagree?
I
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
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 1:47 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 if other people agree/disagree.)
@Other people: agree/disagree?
This is a big improvement on the logging. I really like the
gist of it. I think it should have a second iteration, though.
I reluctantly agree about dropping most all warnings. Once we have a
way to suppress warnings, then we can talk about how to put them back
in.
The main thing is that
The attached patch, relative to trunk r5191, adds a new tests which fails
only in web mode and only for the JsniSuper case. It appears the problem
isn't directly related to super, but rather with making calls to private
methods polymorphic rather than virtual dispatch. This is the bug I ran
into
The attached patch for trunk adds JSONP support, for use with cross-site
data retrieval, such as GData APIs.
--
John A. Tamplin
Software Engineer (GWT), Google
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:13 PM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote:
The attached patch, relative to trunk r5191, adds a new tests which fails
only in web mode and only for the JsniSuper case. It appears the problem
isn't directly related to super, but rather with making calls to private
callSuper() is private, so B's invocation is not polymorphic, and should not
reference C's callSuper()
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Vitali Lovich vlov...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:13 PM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote:
The attached patch, relative to trunk r5191, adds
Reviewers: jlabanca, minz,
Description:
There was a focus issue with the fasttree when the size of the tree was
larger than the viewport, this was especially manifested with very large
trees.
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/18801
Affected files:
Thanks, Lex!
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Lex Spoon sp...@google.com wrote:
This is a big improvement on the logging. I really like the
gist of it. I think it should have a second iteration, though.
I reluctantly agree about dropping most all warnings. Once we have a
way to suppress
It looks like the movable focus element was previously placed relative to
the outer element of FastTree and is now placed relative to the document
body. However, the movable element is physically within the FastTree, so
there is no way to know what its offset parent will be unless we force it to
Another option to assist with mass one step removal is to add said
listeners to a container class that also implements the listener. Then
add the listener to the widget. To remove all listeners in one
operation simply remove the container. This and similar types of
organisation do not
101 - 113 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
