I had to bring back the deprecated methods for HandlManager.
HandlerManager needs to be JRE compatible, so violator is not an option.
Duh.
The patch is also updated to catch up with the AutoBean migration, and
to move the RF test classes to the new event package.
All tests pass now.
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1394803/diff/17008/user/test/com/google/web/bindery/requestfactory/gwt/client/RequestFactoryTestBase.java
File
user/test/com/google/web/bindery/requestfactory/gwt/client/RequestFactoryTestBase.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1394803/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Done, should submit soon.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:13 AM, rj...@google.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1394803/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
r10014
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1394803/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1394803/diff/10001/user/src/com/google/gwt/event/shared/UmbrellaException.java
File user/src/com/google/gwt/event/shared/UmbrellaException.java
(right):
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1394803/diff/10001/user/src/com/google/gwt/event/shared/HandlerManager.java
File user/src/com/google/gwt/event/shared/HandlerManager.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1394803/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
John, thanks for all the feedback. I think this is done.
Bob, I've expanded it to make the relocated RequestFactory classes use
the new event package, along with DynaTableRF. Could you pay particular
attention to RequestFactoryJarExtractor? I'm not sure if I did the right
thing there.
Even with
We want to be able to experiment with non-GWT clients of web services,
particularly via RequestFactory. But I have to put emphasis on the word
experiment. Non-GWT won't be a supported path soon, if ever.
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Andrés Testi andres.a.te...@gmail.comwrote:
Why bindery
We want to be able to experiment with non-GWT clients of web services,
particularly via RequestFactory. But I have to put emphasis on the word
experiment. Non-GWT won't be a supported path soon, if ever.
Is it worth moving packages at the current time then? You could tease
out a non-GWT jar
I don't think Andrés was asking why they weren't in the gwt package. He's
sking why they are in the com.google.web package if they are usable outside
of the web domain. It seems like we are moving from a very limited package
scope to a slightly less limited package scope.
I'm sure you've
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:16 AM, John LaBanca jlaba...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:38 AM, John LaBanca jlaba...@google.comwrote:
I don't think Andrés was asking why they weren't in the gwt package.
He's
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:38 AM, John LaBanca jlaba...@google.com wrote:
I don't think Andrés was asking why they weren't in the gwt package. He's
sking why they are in the com.google.web package if they are usable outside
of the web domain. It seems like we are moving from a very limited
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:38 AM, John LaBanca jlaba...@google.com wrote:
I don't think Andrés was asking why they weren't in the gwt package. He's
sking why they are in the com.google.web package if they are usable outside
You're reading web to mean HTML. I'm reading it as app that talks to a
web service, regardless of what it's written in.
I really like the GWT event model and want to use it in Guice
applications to raise bussiness rules, dispatch entity lifecycle
events, etc.. I think this events API is useful
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1394803/diff/1/user/src/com/google/gwt/activity/shared/Activity.java
File user/src/com/google/gwt/activity/shared/Activity.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1394803/diff/1/user/src/com/google/gwt/activity/shared/Activity.java#newcode19
Why bindery package is nested in a web package? Are these APIs not
available for non web applications?
Regards.
- Andrés
On 31 mar, 01:19, rj...@google.com wrote:
Ready for review. John, can you keep me honest on the treatment of
com.google.gwt.event.shared, and the choices made in the new
Ready for review. John, can you keep me honest on the treatment of
com.google.gwt.event.shared, and the choices made in the new event
package?
Bob, does this fit what you have in mind for the bindery organization?
Note that I've updated Activity and Place to use the new classes, but
not
19 matches
Mail list logo
