Reviewers: rjrjr,
Message:
Request requested.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1422809/diff/1/user/src/com/google/web/bindery/requestfactory/server/SimpleRequestProcessor.java
File
user/src/com/google/web/bindery/requestfactory/server/SimpleRequestProcessor.java
(right):
Reviewers: rjrjr,
Description:
Add RequestContext.append() to allow actions across different domain
service types to be combined in a single HTTP request.
Patch by: bobv
Review by: rjrjr
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1423805/
Affected files:
M
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1422802/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
This greatly simplifies the patch. I'm not sure the extra complexity
and time spent to recover cached units by calculating their content ID
again is worth it, given the infrequency of jar file updates in the
wild..
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1422802/
--
LGTM
I think this is in practice a safe compromise. If a file within a jar
changes, then all things in the jar will appear to be updated, but I
think this is reasonable.
Can refine in the future, to try to detect whether the date of an entry
is 0 (or somehow invalid), and only revert to the
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1428802/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Jaime, can you take this?
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1419801/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Jaime and I are going to look at the benchmarks when we have more time.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1419801/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
I forgot to check during the review, but we usually put the .project,
.classpath, .checkstyle, .settings, and war directory in
trunk/eclipse/samples/MobileWebApp
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1427803/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1420804/diff/7001/user/src/com/google/gwt/uibinder/rebind/FieldManager.java
File user/src/com/google/gwt/uibinder/rebind/FieldManager.java (right):
Nick, could you take a look at this too? In particular see the bottom of
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1422809/diff/1/user/src/com/google/web/bindery/requestfactory/server/SimpleRequestProcessor.java
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 6:57 AM, b...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: rjrjr,
Message:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Daniel Rice (דניאל רייס)
r...@google.com wrote:
I ran a Showcase compile with log level 'info' 4 times each way, and
took the average of the 3 best times for each way:
Without 'if' tests: 396 seconds
With 'if' tests: 350 seconds
wow, this is fantastic.
Yes, I'll make a patch with those files. I held on that until I could test
GPE with the fix for the validation jars
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:42 PM, jlaba...@google.com wrote:
I forgot to check during the review, but we usually put the .project,
.classpath, .checkstyle, .settings, and war
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1422809/diff/1/user/src/com/google/web/bindery/requestfactory/gwt/client/impl/AbstractRequestFactoryEditorDriver.java
File
user/src/com/google/web/bindery/requestfactory/gwt/client/impl/AbstractRequestFactoryEditorDriver.java
(right):
LVGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1422802/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Revision: 10050
Author: gwt.mirror...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Apr 21 12:23:11 2011
Log: Move single jso logic from BasicWebModeCompiler to
JavaToJavaScriptCompiler.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1428802
Review by: robertvaw...@google.com
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1420804/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
LGTM
Wow. Wow. This is a very big deal, and from such a simple change!
The patch includes its own demonstration of why it matters. Look at
RequestFactoryTestBase. It's an asynchronous test that can't declare
itself to be finished until two separate reset() messages are
acknowledged by the
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1420804/diff/7001/user/src/com/google/gwt/uibinder/rebind/FieldManager.java
File user/src/com/google/gwt/uibinder/rebind/FieldManager.java (right):
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1420804/diff/7001/user/src/com/google/gwt/uibinder/rebind/FieldManager.java
File user/src/com/google/gwt/uibinder/rebind/FieldManager.java (right):
I just realized that I don't like the name of this sample. It's not just
about being a mobile app. It's about being a well architected one, which
provides both a mobile and desktop UI.
Shall we call it tasks instead?
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1427803/
--
Reviewers: rchandia,
Description:
no warnings in mobile sample
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1427806/
Affected files:
M
samples/mobilewebapp/src/com/google/gwt/sample/mobilewebapp/client/MobileWebAppShellBase.java
M
Review, please.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1427806/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Revision: 10052
Author: gwt.mirror...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Apr 21 15:19:33 2011
Log: Add RequestContext.append() to allow actions across different
domain service types to be combined in a single HTTP request.
Patch by: bobv
Review by: rjrjr
Review at
r10052
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1423805/diff/1/user/src/com/google/web/bindery/requestfactory/shared/impl/AbstractRequestContext.java
File
user/src/com/google/web/bindery/requestfactory/shared/impl/AbstractRequestContext.java
(right):
r10053
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1422809/diff/1/user/src/com/google/web/bindery/requestfactory/gwt/client/impl/AbstractRequestFactoryEditorDriver.java
File
user/src/com/google/web/bindery/requestfactory/gwt/client/impl/AbstractRequestFactoryEditorDriver.java
(right):
On 2011/04/21 19:36:37, rjrjr wrote:
LGTM
Wow. Wow. This is a very big deal, and from such a simple change!
Which to me leaves the question: is our usage described at [1] an
intended use case, that's here to stay? or simply a fortunate
unspecified behavior, and we should change our code to
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1427806/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
r10054
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1427806/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Reviewers: rjrjr,
Description:
Create a utility class for checking assignability of types for use
in finding compatible constructors/methods.
Review by: rj...@google.com
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1420808/
Affected files:
M
Thanks John, this will be really handy.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1420808/diff/1/user/src/com/google/gwt/uibinder/rebind/TypeOracleUtils.java
File user/src/com/google/gwt/uibinder/rebind/TypeOracleUtils.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1420808/diff/1/user/src/com/google/gwt/uibinder/rebind/TypeOracleUtils.java
File user/src/com/google/gwt/uibinder/rebind/TypeOracleUtils.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1420808/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 6:54 PM, j...@google.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1420808/diff/1/user/src/com/google/gwt/uibinder/rebind/TypeOracleUtils.java
File user/src/com/google/gwt/uibinder/rebind/TypeOracleUtils.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1420808/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1420808/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
LGTM
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 9:24 PM, j...@google.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1420808/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
37 matches
Mail list logo