Gary,
Here is fine (alternatively, on the Google-Web-Toolkit group). What
issues and questions have you got?
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Gary Miller wrote:
>
> Where is the correct place to post issues and questions for Google
> Plugin for Eclipse?
--
Alex Rudnick
swe, gwt, atl
--~--~
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Lex Spoon wrote:
> >> I wouldn't expect TypeExposureComputer to need to report any problems.
> >> Did you run any any cases where it should? Barring an argument to the
> >
> > Not directly, no, but it's needed for pass-through to e.g.
> > STOB.shouldConsiderFiel
Where is the correct place to post issues and questions for Google
Plugin for Eclipse?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Another useful RemoteServiceServlet method would be soMething that
allows the developer to coerse types into another compatible type.
This would make it easy to send foe example the value object instead
of the enhanced type instance. It might also potentially allow
anonymous Lists to be se
If one were to serialize the entries rather than recreating the map
via put alot of other things would need to be changed.
For one the calculation of hashcodes in emulated jre would need to
match those on the server otherwise look ups by string in a hashmap
sent over the wire would never wo
Awesome, thanks Eric. Bob's gonna tackle this.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Eric Ayers wrote:
> Issue: http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=3568
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Eric Ayers wrote:
>
>> Scott,
>>
>> This test is in reference to an observation R
Hi All,
A few of us have been discussing a proposal to generalize how multiple Path
Prefixes with the same path are handled by Gwt. For most of you, this
generalization, when it is implemented, should not be a breaking change.
For details about the proposal, take a look at the last section "When
Author: j...@google.com
Date: Thu Apr 16 15:26:10 2009
New Revision: 5254
Modified:
trunk/user/src/com/google/gwt/user/client/Cookies.java
Log:
Don't let an exception escape if we can't decode cookies. Future work to
support non-encoding of cookies is captured in issue 3566.
Issue: 1633
P
Author: j...@google.com
Date: Thu Apr 16 15:13:33 2009
New Revision: 5253
Added:
trunk/user/src/com/google/gwt/jsonp/
- copied from r5225, /trunk/user/src/com/google/gwt/jsonp/
trunk/user/src/com/google/gwt/jsonp/Jsonp.gwt.xml
- copied unchanged from r5225,
/trunk/user/src
Issue: http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=3568
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Eric Ayers wrote:
> Scott,
>
> This test is in reference to an observation Ray C made on a thread I
> started about the builder pattern
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolk
Scott,
This test is in reference to an observation Ray C made on a thread I started
about the builder pattern
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors/browse_thread/thread/3f283fb840b772cd
This unit test demonstrates the problem - testBuilder1() fails in web mode.
I'm crea
Author: j...@google.com
Date: Thu Apr 16 15:00:28 2009
New Revision: 5251
Modified:
wiki/IE8Support.wiki
Log:
Edited wiki page through web user interface.
Modified: wiki/IE8Support.wiki
==
--- wiki/IE8Support.wiki
Author: j...@google.com
Date: Thu Apr 16 15:01:42 2009
New Revision: 5252
Modified:
wiki/IE8Support.wiki
Log:
Edited wiki page through web user interface.
Modified: wiki/IE8Support.wiki
==
--- wiki/IE8Support.wiki
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/20803
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Freeland Abbott wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Lex Spoon wrote:
>>
>> Can you verify that the same RPC decisions are being made? For
>> example, does the code size look about the same, and the RPC policy
>> files exactly the same? In particular, I'm
Reviewers: jlabanca,
Description:
Extends ClassInitTest (the mockability test) to ensure the mockability
of classes in com.google.gwt.dom.client, and fixes a couple of spots
where they weren't.
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/20803
Affected files:
user/src/com/googl
Author: j...@google.com
Date: Thu Apr 16 13:16:01 2009
New Revision: 5249
Modified:
wiki/IE8Support.wiki
Log:
Edited wiki page through web user interface.
Modified: wiki/IE8Support.wiki
==
--- wiki/IE8Support.wiki
Author: j...@google.com
Date: Thu Apr 16 13:25:26 2009
New Revision: 5250
Modified:
wiki/IE8Support.wiki
Log:
Edited wiki page through web user interface.
Modified: wiki/IE8Support.wiki
==
--- wiki/IE8Support.wiki
I agree you can write ugly code this way, but since its an API for others to
use, I'm not trying to make that kind of judgement, just make it possible
for others to code in that style if they want.
I will note that I did find it very helpful when having to invoke super() in
a constructor, or setti
Author: j...@google.com
Date: Thu Apr 16 12:54:57 2009
New Revision: 5248
Modified:
wiki/IE8Support.wiki
Log:
Edited wiki page through web user interface.
Modified: wiki/IE8Support.wiki
==
--- wiki/IE8Support.wiki
I think it depends on formatting, I find something like:
Builder.create().
foo("Hello").
bar("World").
baz("!").
end();
to be just as readable, if not more so than
Builder b = Builder.create();
b.setFoo("Hello");
b.setBar("World")
b.setBar("!");
Not just because it's less typing and r
Author: j...@google.com
Date: Thu Apr 16 12:51:52 2009
New Revision: 5247
Modified:
wiki/IE8Support.wiki
Log:
Edited wiki page through web user interface.
Modified: wiki/IE8Support.wiki
==
--- wiki/IE8Support.wiki
Author: j...@google.com
Date: Thu Apr 16 12:45:01 2009
New Revision: 5245
Added:
wiki/UserAgentCleanup.wiki
Log:
Created wiki page through web user interface.
Added: wiki/UserAgentCleanup.wiki
==
--- (empty file)
++
Author: j...@google.com
Date: Thu Apr 16 12:48:18 2009
New Revision: 5246
Modified:
wiki/IE8Support.wiki
Log:
Edited wiki page through web user interface.
Modified: wiki/IE8Support.wiki
==
--- wiki/IE8Support.wiki
Personally I don't care for this style of coding. I think it's very
convenient for writing, but it hurts readability.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Eric Ayers wrote:
> Recently I've been wrapping some of my JavaScriptObjects using the builder
> pattern where an instance of the object you are
Author: j...@google.com
Date: Thu Apr 16 12:44:56 2009
New Revision: 5244
Added:
wiki/IE8Support.wiki
Log:
Created wiki page through web user interface.
Added: wiki/IE8Support.wiki
==
--- (empty file)
+++ wiki/IE8Sup
Oh, I didn't realize there was a compiler bug regarding this. Is this an
issue regarding returning this from native?
Builder setFoo(String s)
{
setFooImpl(s); // native function that does the actual code
return this;
}
fix the issue? More code but the inlining compiler should produce th
Well, for one thing, there appears to be a bug in the compiler.
Consider the following:
public void onModuleLoad() {
Window.alert(Builder.newInstance().setFoo("Hello").setBar("World")
.setBaz("!").toString());
}
static final class Builder extends JavaScriptObject {
protected
No I don't think so. There might be some additional overhead of returning a
value instead of void, but I"m pretty sure that would be extremely
negligible to the point of never becoming an issue, regardless how hard you
try (the function invocation itself should dominate that by orders of
magnitude
If the goal is to handle inserts vs updates yourself and simply reuse
ORM objects as DTOs over RPC, you can achieve this today, even on GWT
1.5.3, with zero modifications to either GWT or GAE, you simply tell
the enhancer to turn off detachability.
-Ray
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Miguel P
Recently I've been wrapping some of my JavaScriptObjects using the builder
pattern where an instance of the object you are setting is in the return
value.
http://galgwt-reviews.appspot.com/21604/diff/1/18?context=10
Which you would invoke as:
DraggableObject obj = new DraggableObject(elem,
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Robert Hanson
wrote:
> Ray, I reread your post, and I think that perhaps I had thought that
> this only applied to JDO, but seems to also apply to JPA as well,
> correct?
AFAIK, JDO is a superset of JPA now, and DataNucleus implements JPA as
a facade around thei
I think the solution is:
(1) HashMap_CustomFieldSerializer should write out all the fields within a
HashMap - ie including the hashes. The real problem here is that
Map.put(key, value) is used to rebuild a map.
(2) HashSet_CustomFieldSerializer should do something similar - this means
writing out t
Interesting I wonder how plain old Java Serialization gets around this
kind of problem.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
I've found what I think is a bug in the RPC deserialization code for
handling HashSet and HashMap in GWT 1.5.3 (though I believe it applies
to trunk as well). The symptoms I had initially were that I sent an
object tree to the client, and a HashSet that had 2 elements on the
server only had 1 by t
Author: jlaba...@google.com
Date: Thu Apr 16 08:01:49 2009
New Revision: 5243
Modified:
releases/1.6/user/src/com/google/gwt/dom/client/DOMImplIE6.java
Log:
Fixed a bug where getZoomMultiple() can throw a divide by zero error if
body.offsetWidth() is zero, which can happen on a slow system
Can someone show me the benefits of implementing detached instances
for GWT? AFAIK, the advantage is detecting that an entity bean is
dirty/not dirty, thus preventing some unecessary db queries. If
someone could post some code showing some scenarios, that would be
great. Like Rob, I can handle ins
37 matches
Mail list logo
