Revision: 9809
Author: troni...@google.com
Date: Thu Mar 3 22:05:04 2011
Log: Fixing firefox permission error message when assesing nodeType of a
restricted html element (such as iframe).
Review at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1369804
Review by: fre...@google.com
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1369805/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Scott suggested moving these tests to JSORestrictionsTest, which is not
just the right place, but by only testing from source, it side-steps the
JavaScriptObject bytecode issue that was causing such a huge pain.
LGTM w/ nits. I think this is actually much better than the first
formulation, and has the added benefit of testing JsoRestrictionsChecker
directly.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1369805/diff/1013/dev/core/test/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/JSORestrictionsTest.java
File
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1368802/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1368802/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1370801/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Reviewers: jlabanca,
Description:
HTML5 Storage API in GWT.
This change adds the HTML5 local and session storage APIs, and a Map
interface
backed by storage. This is a contribution from an external project,
the gwt-mobile-webkit project, and is a copy of issue#1290802 with some
additional
Reviewers: rjrjr, jat, bobv, jlabanca, fredsa,
Description:
property fall back value evaluation scheme - enable fall back bindings.
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1369807/
Affected files:
M dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/DefaultSelectionProperty.java
M
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1369805/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1369805/diff/1013/dev/core/test/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/JSORestrictionsTest.java
File dev/core/test/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/JSORestrictionsTest.java
(right):
LGTM
Everything looks good, but there are some places where you can simplify
the Impl classes.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1374803/diff/1/user/src/com/google/gwt/storage/client/StorageImpl.java
File user/src/com/google/gwt/storage/client/StorageImpl.java (right):
Ray: regarding your comment about whether ie9 is needed -- to me it
seems highly unlikely that ie9 is and will remain 100% compatible with
safari, so yes I think it will be needed.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1369807/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1369805/diff/1013/dev/core/test/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/JSORestrictionsTest.java
File dev/core/test/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/JSORestrictionsTest.java
(right):
Does the new IE9 value for user.agent imply yet another permutation? We
should really avoid that if we can, and so far it sounds like it might not
be needed. Can we introduce IE9 without causing a new hard perm?
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:07 AM, j...@google.com wrote:
Mostly LGTM
Needs a unit
LGTM
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:04 AM, jlaba...@google.com wrote:
LGTM
But please format all files.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1369807/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/DefaultSelectionProperty.java
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/DefaultSelectionProperty.java
LGTM
But please format all files.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1369807/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/DefaultSelectionProperty.java
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/DefaultSelectionProperty.java
(right):
Mostly LGTM
Needs a unit test for property fallback behavior.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1369807/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Address comments and our conversation.
I'd like to submit this CL as soon as possible and add handling for
orientation change next week. I'll add a OrientationEvent support to
GWT and use that to catch the orientation change.
I agree that less permutations is better, but I would add a twist to the
question: even if we could should we? if one could only predict all
issues we will have with IE9 and then would we fix on safariimpl based
on (is ua==msie)? fork then and implement implIE9 to fix something? I
don't know of
A user can already collapse the permutations using softperms, and I
don't think we should assume that for them, just like we don't collapse
ie6/ie8 using softperms today.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1369807/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Revision: 9811
Author: ncha...@google.com
Date: Fri Mar 4 11:49:07 2011
Log: Edited wiki page BeanValidation through web user interface.
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=9811
Modified:
/wiki/BeanValidation.wiki
===
---
But we *don't* distinguish ie7 and ie8, and IIRC that was to avoid making a
new permutation.
At the very least, why don't we collapse the ie9 permutation by default if
we can?
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:35 AM, j...@google.com wrote:
A user can already collapse the permutations using softperms,
On 2011/03/04 04:52:16, rjrjr wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1355802/diff/15003/user/src/com/google/gwt/i18n/server/MessageInterfaceVisitor.java#newcode44
user/src/com/google/gwt/i18n/server/MessageInterfaceVisitor.java:44: *
mv.visitMessage([one, FEMALE], false, msgStyle, 1);
These
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1369807/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/DefaultSelectionProperty.java
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/DefaultSelectionProperty.java
(right):
Reviewers: jlabanca, pdr, jwren,
Description:
WebAppCreator now has the ability to create apps from templates.
It can also mix different templates to generate the sample app based on
the value passed with a
'-templates' parameter.
The sample app has now been separated into five templates:
- The
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1374803/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1374803/diff/1/user/src/com/google/gwt/storage/client/StorageImpl.java
File user/src/com/google/gwt/storage/client/StorageImpl.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1374803/diff/1/user/src/com/google/gwt/storage/client/StorageImpl.java#newcode193
LGTM with nits
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1370801/diff/7001/user/src/com/google/gwt/touch/client/Momentum.java
File user/src/com/google/gwt/touch/client/Momentum.java (right):
Reviewers: rjrjr,
Description:
Format changes only. Applied new auto-formatter in prep for real
changes.
Review by: rj...@google.com
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1370807/
Affected files:
M user/src/com/google/gwt/requestfactory/server/LocatorServiceLayer.java
Having IE9 fallback to Safari sounds dangerous to me. If I put a fix in
a Safari Impl class, am I supposed to know that the change will also
apply to IE9? Normally, I don't test other browsers if I'm working on a
permutation specified fix. And just because Showcase runs doesn't mean
that all
This CL looks great. Cross off another one for HTML5 support.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1374803/diff/20/user/src/com/google/gwt/storage/client/StorageImplNonNativeEvents.java
File
user/src/com/google/gwt/storage/client/StorageImplNonNativeEvents.java
(right):
Regardless of the outcome we arrive at, I am planning on doing more tests
next week too see close they are, though remains to be answered the question
of what we do if they start drifting apart I have a build of ie9 being
handled as safari running...
On Mar 4, 2011 6:22 PM, jlaba...@google.com
Reviewers: scottb, tobyr, jbrosenberg,
Description:
Adds a cache (PersistenUnitCache) to store CompilationUnits
between invocations of DevMode and the Compiler. This
saves time in building the TypeOracle on startup for those
files that have 1) remained unchanged and 2) their type
dependencies
Reviewers: zundel, jbrosenberg, cromwellian,
Description:
Introduces a new CompileModule action, which triggers the production of
decoupled ASTs during CompilationState build. At present, these ASTs
are unusable, but follow-on work to stitch together decoupled ASTs
should allow us to eliminate
HI,
Sorry this post is different from the review. I have following
questions
1)I am not sure whether this can be used with IndexDB which is new
HTML5 specification.
2)How about using some third party library for HTML5 storage on non
HTML5 supported browser like FF3.0 etc
3)Why not include
36 matches
Mail list logo
