I'd rather put it elsewhere, as it would just move the problem but not
solve issue 2815.
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=2815
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/401
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for looking at this Thomas,
Maybe UserAgent should just go into a path that has no client source
associated with it. That would provide fine grain inheritance. But
before we do do that, would it be reasonable in your uses to just
inherit dom.Dom?
For all my uses this seemed reasonable.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:50 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be honest, I wish we would start creating larger .gwt.xml files and
make each one that exists inheritable.
I agree. It was a rookie decision we made early on to over-emphasize
fine-grained module reuse, and, like C header files,
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Bruce Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:50 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be honest, I wish we would start creating larger .gwt.xml files and
make each one that exists inheritable.
I agree. It was a rookie decision we made early on
I'm going to add useragent.UserAgent and update a new patch.
/kel
On 2008/12/03 12:50:52, knorton wrote:
Thanks for looking at this Thomas,
Maybe UserAgent should just go into a path that has no client source
associated
with it. That would provide fine grain inheritance. But before we do
do
Hey, that's a nice visualization! Using a nice view like that, we can
probably iterate in early 2009 to clean up a lot of this.
(Spoiler alert: I'm going to start advocating hard in 2009 to get rid of
module XML altogether and use package and class annotations instead.)
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Bruce Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey, that's a nice visualization! Using a nice view like that, we can
probably iterate in early 2009 to clean up a lot of this.
Ok, but I do want to create useragent.UserAgent now as I selfishly need the
ability to
