I've seen many questions on the net on how to enable cross-domain
requests with GWT, and most of the solutions I've seen mentioned has
been less efficient than what I know the easyXDM library can offer.
For those who has never heard of it, easyXDM is a library that
conveniently abstracts away all
I just installed the preview the other day as well, and most things seem to
be working ok (the UA script should detect it as IE8 for the time being). As
others point out on this thread, the DOMContentLoaded thing is expected
(because they added addEventListener()) but likely harmless.
I haven't
[+matt]
I can't speak to any experience with either of these libraries, but this
also sounds like the work Matt's been doing here:
http://code.google.com/p/gwt-rpc-plus/
http://code.google.com/p/gwt-rpc-plus/Can anyone speak to the relationship
between these libraries? I'd love to see a
On 2010/03/19 20:26:43, Dan Rice wrote:
LGTM.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/248801/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email
Revision: 7755
Author: r...@google.com
Date: Mon Mar 22 05:11:01 2010
Log: Add 'view data' to cell, column, and updater classes.
Make the Validation example work with view data.
Review at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/248801
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=7755
Revision: 7756
Author: r...@google.com
Date: Mon Mar 22 05:12:31 2010
Log: Checkstyle fixes
Review at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/249801
Review by: rj...@google.com
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=7756
Modified:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/232801/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with
the words REMOVE ME as the subject.
Comments as noted; also, what semantics do we want for equality?
(Identity is certainly cheapest, and probably good, just wanted to make
an explicit choice there).
I think you're buggy if your first element is null, and I'm not entirely
sure the singleElem special case is worth the time-cost of
Reviewers: cromwellian,
Description:
Support runAsync with the cross-site linker.
Review at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/213801
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/243802/show
Affected files:
M
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/213801/diff/1/8
File
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/HandleCrossIslandReferences.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/213801/diff/1/8#newcode79
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/HandleCrossIslandReferences.java:79:
public void
Updated patch for review at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/243802 .
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/213801/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscribegooglegroups.com
This is an updated patch in response to the review comments at:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/213801
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/243802/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Can someone explain why isFrozen is a good idea? It sounds really,
really bad to me.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/232801/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Quickly browsing easyXDM and comparing to gwt-rpc-plus, it looks like the
designs of both are very similar. easyXDM uses the term 'socket' where
gwt-rpc-plus uses the term 'transport'. Both of them allow you to plug in the
appropriate transport behind a socket-like interface. easyXDM adds some
Revision: 7757
Author: sp...@google.com
Date: Mon Mar 22 07:20:12 2010
Log: Give a better error message when RunAsyncCode.runAsyncCode is passed
something
other than a class literal.
Review at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/220802
Review by: sco...@google.com
Revision: 7758
Author: sp...@google.com
Date: Mon Mar 22 10:44:42 2010
Log: Created wiki page through web user interface.
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=7758
Added:
/wiki/PrecompressLinker.wiki
===
--- /dev/null
+++
Reviewers: jat,
Description:
Adds a Precompress linker that can be used to compress public artifacts
as part of a GWT build. The design doc is here:
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/wiki/PrecompressLinker
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/254801/show
Revision: 7759
Author: rj...@google.com
Date: Mon Mar 22 07:44:56 2010
Log: No more massive copy paste between our request
objects. Introduces the abstract classes for RequestFactory
and its request object.
Also some clean up to make it more clear what classes will
come from GWT code generators
John, can you review the bulk of this patch, which adds a Precompress
linker?
Dan, can you review the parts about the black list support? I factored
out the black list support from RPC to be reusable. The classes
involved are: Blacklist, BlacklistTypeFilter, BlacklistTypeFilterTest,
RPCSuite.
isFrozen allows assertions on the status of a mutable collection. During
normal use (assertions disabled), there should be no need to call isFrozen.
Moreover, using isFrozen outside of an assertion, or while assertions are
disabled, is not guaranteed to work at all. The intention is to avoid
Can you outline a use case? I don't get it. My argument isn't with isFrozen,
it's with the freezing feature per se. I can't see a reasonable use for it.
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Rodrigo Chandia rchan...@google.comwrote:
isFrozen allows assertions on the status of a mutable collection.
The claim is that you make an ImmutableFoo by freezing a MutableFoo, after
which the invariant is that no client will change that collection. It isn't
a copy, it's a freeze of the thing, so the flag blocks you from changing via
the original MutableFoo handle.
Contrast with vanilla Foo, which
Is it this one again?
http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit-contributors/browse_thread/thread/74857a726d25bbac
On 19 Mrz., 21:47, Joel Webber j...@google.com wrote:
I am able to reproduce this leak as well, and can confirm that it only
happens on IE6 (not 7+). If I use a standard
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/232801/diff/3001/4002
File bikeshed/src/com/google/gwt/collections/Assertions.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/232801/diff/3001/4002#newcode24
bikeshed/src/com/google/gwt/collections/Assertions.java:24: assert
(index = 0 index maxExclusive)
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Freeland Abbott fabb...@google.com wrote:
The claim is that you make an ImmutableFoo by freezing a MutableFoo,
after which the invariant is that no client will change that collection. It
isn't a copy, it's a freeze of the thing, so the flag blocks you from
Here's how freeze() got introduced.
You need to be able to have ImmutableArray without any mutators, and you
need to be able to create them, thus you need a builder. A very frequent
pattern will be to build up an array with a builder (the hypothetical
ImmutableArrayBuilder) and then want to get
@John: I totally agree that's a risk, but then again, the situation you
describe would arguably be a bug anyway -- or at least I'd call it
under-specified. Indeed, I hope that in people's paranoia to avoid those
situations, that they are more thoughtful about the types they hand around
in their
I think if we are making this on by default, we need to make it easy to
disable. I think I would prefer it to be opt-in, at least initially,
since for it to be useful other changes have to be made (their server
needs to know to serve the .gz version instead) and probably those
people already
Revision: 7760
Author: sp...@google.com
Date: Mon Mar 22 09:13:22 2010
Log: Extract from the selection script templates the functions
computeScriptBase() and processMetas() and put them in
their own files. Those files are patched into the
selection script templates by SelectionScriptLinker.
First comment, I'm glad we've provoked this re-discussion, because the
original wave was by definition not public.
Back to your regular programming, I think the *intended *pattern is that a
given mutable thing would only be owned by one entity, which would
therefore have control of whether it was
From FTF discussion, I see it isn't actually enabled by default since
you have to do an add-linker. In that case, ignore the bits about
making it opt-in above, and instead I suggest having a module file which
does the add-linker so someone who wants the functionality can just
inherit the module.
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote:
@John: I totally agree that's a risk, but then again, the situation you
describe would arguably be a bug anyway -- or at least I'd call it
under-specified. Indeed, I hope that in people's paranoia to avoid those
I guess I'm overstating my opposition. It's not really dangerous, but it
just doesn't seem useful. Just by existing I think it'll promote confusion
and perhaps bad habits. Why bother?
I think the 90% use case is for something like the following (writing in JRE
terms here):
private final
LGTM - assuming you remove the marker deletions
FYI - Our Eclipse projects dump class files out to war/WEB-INF/classes,
but the classes file go in trunk/eclipse/samples/ whereas the source is
in trunk/samples/. Without the marker file, Eclipse wouldn't copy the
classes/ folder to
I like the *concept* of immutability being introduced early in the
development. The initial implementation may be limiting for some use cases,
but I believe it is a useful concept to expand on. If specific needs require
simultaneous mutable and immutable access we can provide implementations to
I think you're missing my point. An object is immutable if there exists no
api to mutate it. That should be enough.
Let me put it another way. It's lame that the JRE achieves immutability by
turning mutate methods into runtime errors. It will be equally lame of us to
do the same, especially since
I think we're talking about two different things here. Rodrigo's (valid)
point is that implementing immutability sanely early on is a good idea. And
this implementation is pretty much analogous to the one you describe from
Cocoa.
The question at hand is whether it makes sense to get an immutable
My argument is that one is necessary and sufficient. Two is kind of
pointless if you have achieved one, and maybe even counterproductive.
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Joel Webber j...@google.com wrote:
I think we're talking about two different things here. Rodrigo's (valid)
point is that
Revision: 7761
Author: f...@google.com
Date: Mon Mar 22 11:47:01 2010
Log: Annotated failed HtmlUnit test cases.
Review by: amitman...@google.com
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=7761
Modified:
/trunk/user/test/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/CreateEventTest.java
Immutability is a stronger assertion than read-only access. If I receive a
read-only object I better make sure to handle the case of the data being
changed by others; be it by tacit agreement, using other channels, locking
or simply ignoring the issue. Immutability guarantees the data is stable
Thx, I'll take a quick look. If you didn't do the extra sanity
checking, I wouldn't worry about it too much.
-Ray
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 9:17 AM, sp...@google.com wrote:
This is an updated patch in response to the review comments at:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/213801
LGTM. In the future, we might want to move some of those mock classes
into a LinkerTestBase class or something if we find we need to write
more linker tests.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/183801/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
To unsubscribe from
I think Rodrigo's point already subsumed what I'm about to say, but there
are three cases here:
1) A read-only reference to a collection that may or may not be mutable by
someone else. This is the purpose of the root type Array, which has not
mutators but doesn't make a guarantee about whether
public MyPanel(ImmutableArrayWidget widgets) { ... }
That's the use case I was missing. Thanks for taking the time to debate,
guys.
rjrjr
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote:
I think Rodrigo's point already subsumed what I'm about to say, but there
are
There is also a chance that the compiler can be taught about Immutable
types to help in analysis. A typical case I've seen in record based
function languages is an optimization called equational reasoning,
which essentially boils down to statically determining the the fields
of an object as
Revision: 7762
Author: amitman...@google.com
Date: Mon Mar 22 16:05:18 2010
Log: 1. Updates all requests to use POST instead of GET.
2. Use JSON to encode requests instead of a custom solution.
Patch by: amitmanjhi
Review by: rjrjr (desk review and TBR)
46 matches
Mail list logo
