Comment by zixzigma:
is Date Validation supported ?
For more information:
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/wiki/BeanValidation
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Comment by david.nouls:
I have the same question as mr autobeanvonautobahn. The current GWT RPC
mechanism is a nightmare for interoperability and also difficult to stress
test with tools like JMeter. We want the ability to reuse the RPC calls
through a JSON API, with not too much
Comment by t.broyer:
RequestFactory is not designed for an RPC style use, but using only
ValueProxy I believe you could do it anyway (it could also be a first step
in migrating from GWT-RPC to RF for CRUD oriented apps)
For more information:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 5:58 PM, BobV b...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Thomas Broyer t.bro...@gmail.com wrote:
But how do you explain the difference in display then between
OptionalFieldEditor (which also appears to work OK in DynaTableRf) and our
copy without
Reviewers: jbrosenberg,
Description:
Ensure that enum types reachable through AutoBean method
parameterizations are included in the EnumMap.
Patch by: bobv
Review by: jbrosenberg
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1240801/show
Affected files:
M
Comment by ncha...@google.com:
Yes Date validation is supported, just not java.util.Calendar Validation,
because the Calendar object is not supported in GWT.
For more information:
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/wiki/BeanValidation
--
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1235801/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1224801/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1235801/diff/1/4
File
user/src/com/google/gwt/user/rebind/rpc/ServiceInterfaceProxyGenerator.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1235801/diff/1/4#newcode61
user/src/com/google/gwt/user/rebind/rpc/ServiceInterfaceProxyGenerator.java:61:
return
The mix of explicit vs. implicit dependency tracking is confusing. You
have an explicit requirements.addConfigurationProperty(), but the
@Source-file tracking is implicit via
ResourceContext.getResourcesForMethod().
The SupportsGeneratorResourceCaching interface makes sense, but the
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1224801/diff/1/2
File user/src/com/google/gwt/junit/client/GWTTestCase.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1224801/diff/1/2#newcode445
user/src/com/google/gwt/junit/client/GWTTestCase.java:445: // Check to
see if gwt.devjar is null. If so,
LGTM. Notice that in user/ supersource goes into user/super and
supersource tests go into user/test-super.
On 2010/12/21 04:26:56, Nick Chalko wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1239801/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
LGTM
On 2010/12/21 01:20:30, Nick Chalko wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1238801/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
On 2010/12/21 16:02:35, bobv wrote:
Bob, thanks for the comments...
The mix of explicit vs. implicit dependency tracking is confusing.
You have an
explicit requirements.addConfigurationProperty(), but the @Source-file
tracking
is implicit via ResourceContext.getResourcesForMethod().
(grumbleThe reply function doesn't publish comments/grumble)
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1236801/diff/1/3
File user/src/com/google/gwt/resources/ext/ResourceContext.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1236801/diff/1/3#newcode147
Revision: 9472
Author: jbrosenb...@google.com
Date: Tue Dec 21 05:37:31 2010
Log: Generator Result Caching implementation for RPC
Review at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1235801
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=9472
Modified:
Revision: 9473
Author: j...@google.com
Date: Tue Dec 21 05:40:19 2010
Log: Fix use of length() in generated JS code.
Patch by: jat
Review by: unnurg
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=9473
Modified:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:09 AM, p...@google.com wrote:
On 2010/12/16 19:43:39, rdayal wrote:
Is this system property required?
This is a tough one, because I don't think it's strictly required, but
the devjar has things such as the GWT devmode bridge and the GWT
compiler. Can you think
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Thomas Broyer t.bro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 5:58 PM, BobV b...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Thomas Broyer t.bro...@gmail.com wrote:
But how do you explain the difference in display then between
OptionalFieldEditor
Revision: 9475
Author: ncha...@google.com
Date: Tue Dec 21 06:50:31 2010
Log: Select the correct ConstraintValidator for the bean type.
This does not implement the full spec, but will always return
a compatible ConstraintValidator if available.
[JSR 303 TCK Result] 53 of 258 (20.54%) Pass with 28
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1236801/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1236801/diff/1/3
File user/src/com/google/gwt/resources/ext/ResourceContext.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1236801/diff/1/3#newcode147
user/src/com/google/gwt/resources/ext/ResourceContext.java:147: * a
given method. This data will be
Reviewers: zundel,
Description:
Rolling back Generator Result Caching for RPC (issues have been
identified)
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1241801/show
Affected files:
M user/src/com/google/gwt/rpc/rebind/RpcProxyCreator.java
M
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1241801/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Matt Moriarity
matt.moriar...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm attempting to switch to using RequestFactory instead of GWT-RPC and
manually creating DTOs. It's been going pretty well, except I've hit one
use-case that is just a brick wall.
I have a panel that is an
Hi,
(cross posted from users list as this is most likely more relevant to this
list, being a possible bug)
I believe I've uncovered an error in version 2.1.1 of SimpleRequestProcessor
when there are no invocations and only operations in a RequestMessage from
the client (stacktrace at end of
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Cory cory.pro...@gmail.com wrote:
(cross posted from users list as this is most likely more relevant to this
list, being a possible bug)
What sequence of client-side API calls did you make in order to get a
payload with no invocations?
--
Bob Vawter
Google Web
On the client I am effectively doing the following (I've removed the widget
stuff for ease of reading):
interface Driver extends RequestFactoryEditorDriverArticleProxy,
ArticleEditorDesktop {}
...
driver.initialize(clientFactory.getEventBus(),
clientFactory.getRequestFactory(),
28 matches
Mail list logo
