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
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
Interesting I wonder how plain old Java Serialization gets around this
kind of problem.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Robert Hanson
iamroberthan...@gmail.com 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
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,
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
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 zun...@google.com wrote:
Recently I've been wrapping some of my JavaScriptObjects using the builder
pattern where an instance of
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
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 12:51:52 2009
New Revision: 5247
Modified:
wiki/IE8Support.wiki
Log:
Edited wiki page through web user interface.
Modified: wiki/IE8Support.wiki
==
--- wiki/IE8Support.wiki
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 repetition,
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
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
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
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:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Freeland Abbott fabb...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Lex Spoon sp...@google.com 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
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/20803
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
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
Awesome, thanks Eric. Bob's gonna tackle this.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Eric Ayers zun...@google.com 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 zun...@google.com wrote:
Scott,
This test is in
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
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
Where is the correct place to post issues and questions for Google
Plugin for Eclipse?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
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 miller.ga...@gmail.com wrote:
Where is the correct place to post issues and questions for Google
Plugin for Eclipse?
--
Alex Rudnick
23 matches
Mail list logo
