Revision: 8501
Author: cromwell...@google.com
Date: Fri Aug 6 14:02:08 2010
Log: Treat undefined Record properties on JSOs as nulls
Review at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/744801
Review by: amitman...@google.com
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=8501
Modified:
LGTM
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 3:58 PM, wrote:
> Reviewers: amitmanjhi,
>
> Description:
> Treat undefined Record properties on JSOs as nulls
>
>
> Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/744801/show
>
> Affected files:
> M user/src/com/google/gwt/valuestore/shared/impl/RecordJso
I'll take bigger and functional over smaller and throwing exceptions
any old day of the week
On Aug 6, 6:05 pm, Ray Cromwell wrote:
> I'm going to change it to treat undefined as null. In theory, I could change
> RecordJsoImpl to initialize all property fields to null or a default value,
> accor
Reviewers: Ray Ryan,
Description:
Public: Simple implementation of ConstraintViolation,
ConstraintDescriptor, Path and Node.
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/735802/show
Affected files:
A user/src/com/google/gwt/validation/client/ConstraintViolationImpl.java
A user
Comment by northrup...@gmail.com:
please suggest commandline and maven-gwt-plugins switches for 2 core, 4
core, and 8 core workstations
For more information:
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/wiki/JavaSystemPropertiesAndGwt
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Co
On Friday, August 06, 2010 18:05:04 Ray Cromwell wrote:
> I'm going to change it to treat undefined as null. In theory, I could
> change RecordJsoImpl to initialize all property fields to null or a
> default value, according to JLS semantics, but this just makes the client
> code bigger, and JSON t
I'm going to change it to treat undefined as null. In theory, I could change
RecordJsoImpl to initialize all property fields to null or a default value,
according to JLS semantics, but this just makes the client code bigger, and
JSON transfers bigger. Anyone object?
-Ray
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at
Revision: 8499
Author: amitman...@google.com
Date: Fri Aug 6 11:47:57 2010
Log: Remaining changes to bikeshed/scaffold app as a result of using Long
ids instead of String ids.
Patch by: amitmanjhi
Review by: cromwellian (tbr)
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=8499
Revision: 8498
Author: amitman...@google.com
Date: Fri Aug 6 11:42:27 2010
Log: Removed the RequestDataManager class that is no longer used.
Patch by: amitmanjhi
Review by: cromwellian (tbr)
Review at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/743801
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source
Thanks for finding this, you just saved me a lot of trouble tracking it
down. I will fix it shortly.
-Ray
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 2:31 PM, pjulien wrote:
> I'm not having much luck with this patch either. The problem I have
> is with enums.
>
> If I have a record with:
>
> Property phoneType =
I'm not having much luck with this patch either. The problem I have
is with enums.
If I have a record with:
Property phoneType = new
EnumProperty("phoneType", PhoneType.class,
PhoneType.values());
This works well if the row is created on the server and sent to the
client. The use case is simpl
committed as r8497
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/720802/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Revision: 8497
Author: jlaba...@google.com
Date: Fri Aug 6 11:09:15 2010
Log: Fixing a couple of typos in JavaDoc.
Review at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/720802
Review by: r...@google.com
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=8497
Modified:
/trunk/user/src/com/goo
Comment by northrup...@gmail.com:
I'm very uncomfortable with the "Keep implementations locked down"
assertion. I think this was mentioned and I share the sentiment.
For more information:
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/wiki/LightweightCollections
--
http://groups.google.com/gr
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/725804/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
LGTM++
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/704803/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/717801/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/704803/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/717801/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
committed as r8495
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/713803/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
As we chatted over IM, the RequestDataManager class was not deleted in an
earlier patch, as it should have been. Prepared a patch that deletes the
class:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/743801/show
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 10:14 AM, wrote:
>
> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/710803/diff/1
Reviewers: cromwellian,
Description:
Removed the RequestDataManager class that is no longer used.
Patch by: amitmanjhi
Review by: cromwellian (tbr)
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/743801/show
Affected files:
D
user/src/com/google/gwt/requestfactory/shared/impl/Re
On Aug 5, 10:38 pm, John Tamplin wrote:
>
> How do you know you are getting a serialized exception rather than some
> random error page returned by the server?
This almost sounds rhetorical, but...
*I* know I'm getting the serialized exception that my code threw from
the RPC service-side servic
On Friday, August 06, 2010 00:48:34 codesite-nore...@google.com wrote:
> Revision: 8484
> Author: cromwell...@google.com
> Date: Wed Aug 4 22:08:44 2010
> Log: Fix support for null fields and Boolean type types in RequestFactory.
> Null fix patch by icsy
>
> Review at http://gwt-code-reviews.apps
Revision: 8496
Author: r...@google.com
Date: Fri Aug 6 06:29:40 2010
Log: "De-bounce" built-in selection models
Review at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/722802
Review by: rj...@google.com
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=8496
Modified:
/trunk/user/src/com/googl
I couldn't find a way to inherit them, but its on my TODO list to find
out if its possible.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/713803/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Revision: 8495
Author: jlaba...@google.com
Date: Fri Aug 6 04:02:11 2010
Log: Adding missing keyboardSelected styles to CellTable.css sub classes
used by ExpenseList and ExpenseDetails.
Review at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/713803
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/de
LGTM
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 10:00 AM, wrote:
> Reviewers: Dan Rice,
>
> Description:
> Adding missing keyboardSelected styles to CellTable.css sub classes used
> by ExpenseList and ExpenseDetails.
>
>
> Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/713803/show
>
> Affected files:
>
LGTM
Is there a way to inherit these rather than having to redeclare them in
every app?
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/713803/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/720802/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Reviewers: Dan Rice,
Description:
Adding missing keyboardSelected styles to CellTable.css sub classes used
by ExpenseList and ExpenseDetails.
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/713803/show
Affected files:
M
bikeshed/src/com/google/gwt/sample/expenses/gwt/client/Expen
Reviewers: Dan Rice,
Description:
Fixing a couple of typos in JavaDoc.
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/720802/show
Affected files:
M user/src/com/google/gwt/app/place/ActivityManager.java
M user/src/com/google/gwt/cell/client/ClickableTextCell.java
Index: user/s
committed as r8477
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/738802/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Google Adwords contains good looking business widgets (buttons,
dropdowns, wizards, etc). How about open-sourcing some of those?
On Aug 6, 2:44 pm, Chris Ramsdale wrote:
> Hey GWT(ers),
>
> I've heard from many of you that GWT apps simply don't look that good out of
> the box, and styling the def
Hey GWT(ers),
I've heard from many of you that GWT apps simply don't look that good out of
the box, and styling the default app would go a long way. We couldn't agree
more. As some of you know, GWT 2.1 (with the help of Spring Roo 1.1) will
generate a full-fledged scaffolding app that users can th
35 matches
Mail list logo