[gwt-contrib] [google-web-toolkit] r10677 committed - Remove entrDepthWatchdog exception reporting....
Revision: 10677
Author: emmanu...@google.com
Date: Sun Oct 2 22:58:27 2011
Log: Remove entrDepthWatchdog exception reporting.
Review by: rj...@google.com
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=10677
Modified:
/trunk/user/src/com/google/gwt/core/client/impl/Impl.java
===
--- /trunk/user/src/com/google/gwt/core/client/impl/Impl.java Tue Sep 6
06:11:27 2011
+++ /trunk/user/src/com/google/gwt/core/client/impl/Impl.java Sun Oct 2
22:58:27 2011
@@ -293,13 +293,7 @@
// Note: this must NEVER be called nested in a $entry() call.
// This method is call from a setTimeout: entryDepth should be set
to 0.
if (GWT.isScript() entryDepth != 0) {
- int oldDepth = entryDepth;
entryDepth = 0;
- if (GWT.getUncaughtExceptionHandler() != null) {
-// Report the problem.
-GWT.getUncaughtExceptionHandler().onUncaughtException(
-new IllegalStateException(Invalid entryDepth value +
oldDepth));
- }
}
watchdogEntryDepthTimerId = -1; // Timer has run.
}
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: ui:with to set property values (issue1524803)
LGTM I agree, I don't think you're making things worse, just subject to the same problems that are already there. I'll submit this today or tomorrow presuming Rafa doesn't shout me down. Thanks for this! On 2011/10/03 04:46:22, justin_hickman wrote: Any updates to this issue? From my investigations, the behavior with the ui:attributes element exhibits identical behavior to what is already in uibinder using just Widget references. http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1524803/ -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: ui:with to set property values (issue1524803)
Justin, I'm having trouble applying the patch. Do you need to sync and post a new one? On 2011/10/03 17:19:57, rjrjr wrote: LGTM I agree, I don't think you're making things worse, just subject to the same problems that are already there. I'll submit this today or tomorrow presuming Rafa doesn't shout me down. Thanks for this! On 2011/10/03 04:46:22, justin_hickman wrote: Any updates to this issue? From my investigations, the behavior with the ui:attributes element exhibits identical behavior to what is already in uibinder using just Widget references. http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1524803/ -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: Design Time Access to UiBinder Model
Basically these hooks allow you get notification about bean object creation
and provide result for @UiField(provided=true) and @UiFactory.
That's all.
See implementation here:
http://www.google.com/codesearch#A1edwVHBClQ/user/src/com/google/gwt/uibinder/rebind/DesignTimeUtils.javact=rccd=1q=DesignTimeUtils
http://www.google.com/codesearch#A1edwVHBClQ/user/src/com/google/gwt/uibinder/rebind/DesignTimeUtilsImpl.javact=rccd=3q=DesignTimeUtils
UiBinder Designer implements interface DTObjectHandler.
Object handler =
Proxy.newProxyInstance(classLoader, new Class[]{handlerClass}, new
InvocationHandler() {
public Object invoke(Object proxy, Method method, Object[] args)
throws Throwable {
if (method.getName().equals(handle)) {
String path = (String) args[0];
Object object = args[1];
createModel(path, object);
}
if (method.getName().equals(provideFactory)) {
Class? factoryType = (Class?) args[0];
String methodName = (String) args[1];
Object[] factoryArgs = (Object[]) args[2];
return createProvidedFactory(m_context, factoryType,
methodName, factoryArgs);
}
if (method.getName().equals(provideField)) {
Class? fieldType = (Class?) args[0];
String fieldName = (String) args[1];
return createProvidedField(m_context, fieldType, fieldName);
}
return null;
}
});
ReflectionUtils.setField(binder, dtObjectHandler, handler);
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] [google-web-toolkit] r10678 committed - Fixed issue that was causing ERROR log messages due to duplicate cssma...
Revision: 10678
Author: gwt.mirror...@gmail.com
Date: Mon Oct 3 12:47:54 2011
Log: Fixed issue that was causing ERROR log messages due to duplicate
cssmap file names.
Since there may be multiple css resources with the same base subtype (e.g.
CssResource), the subtype class is not
guaranteed to be unique. Instead, the qualified resource getter method name
is used which is unique.
Review by: unn...@google.com
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=10678
Modified:
/trunk/user/src/com/google/gwt/resources/rg/CssResourceGenerator.java
/trunk/user/test/com/google/gwt/resources/rg/CssOutputTestCase.java
===
--- /trunk/user/src/com/google/gwt/resources/rg/CssResourceGenerator.java
Fri Sep 30 10:03:13 2011
+++ /trunk/user/src/com/google/gwt/resources/rg/CssResourceGenerator.java
Mon Oct 3 12:47:54 2011
@@ -445,9 +445,8 @@
// Optimize the stylesheet, recording the class selector obfuscations
MapJMethod, String actualReplacements = optimize(logger, context,
method);
-
-outputCssMapArtifact(logger, context, actualReplacements,
-cssResourceSubtype.getQualifiedSourceName());
+
+outputCssMapArtifact(logger, context, method, actualReplacements);
outputAdditionalArtifacts(logger, context, method, actualReplacements,
cssResourceSubtype, stylesheet);
@@ -595,20 +594,26 @@
* Builds a CSV file mapping obfuscated CSS class names to their
qualified source name and
* outputs it as a private build artifact.
*/
- protected void outputCssMapArtifact(TreeLogger logger, ResourceContext
context,
- MapJMethod, String actualReplacements, String outputFileName) {
-String mappingFileName = cssResource/ + outputFileName + .cssmap;
+ protected void outputCssMapArtifact(TreeLogger logger, ResourceContext
context, JMethod method,
+ MapJMethod, String actualReplacements) {
+// There may be several css resources that have the same css resource
subtype (e.g. CssResource)
+// so the qualified accessor method name is used for the unique output
file name.
+JClassType bundleType = method.getEnclosingType();
+
+String qualifiedMethodName = bundleType.getQualifiedSourceName() + .
+ method.getName();
+
+String mappingFileName = cssResource/ + qualifiedMethodName
+ .cssmap;
OutputStream os = null;
try {
os = context.getGeneratorContext().tryCreateResource(logger,
mappingFileName);
} catch (UnableToCompleteException e) {
- logger.log(TreeLogger.ERROR, Could not create resource: +
mappingFileName);
+ logger.log(TreeLogger.WARN, Could not create resource: +
mappingFileName);
return;
}
if (os == null) {
- logger.log(TreeLogger.ERROR, Created resource is null: +
mappingFileName);
+ logger.log(TreeLogger.WARN, Created resource is null: +
mappingFileName);
return;
}
@@ -625,13 +630,13 @@
writer.flush();
writer.close();
} catch (IOException e) {
- logger.log(TreeLogger.ERROR, Error writing artifact: +
mappingFileName);
+ logger.log(TreeLogger.WARN, Error writing artifact: +
mappingFileName);
}
try {
context.getGeneratorContext().commitResource(logger,
os).setVisibility(Visibility.Private);
} catch (UnableToCompleteException e) {
- logger.log(TreeLogger.ERROR, Error trying to commit artifact: +
mappingFileName);
+ logger.log(TreeLogger.WARN, Error trying to commit artifact: +
mappingFileName);
}
}
===
--- /trunk/user/test/com/google/gwt/resources/rg/CssOutputTestCase.java Fri
Sep 30 10:03:13 2011
+++ /trunk/user/test/com/google/gwt/resources/rg/CssOutputTestCase.java Mon
Oct 3 12:47:54 2011
@@ -49,23 +49,35 @@
EasyMock.expect(mockResourceContext.getGeneratorContext()).andReturn(mockGeneratorContext);
EasyMock.expectLastCall().times(2);
EasyMock.expect(mockGeneratorContext.tryCreateResource(
-
testLogger, cssResource/test-file-name.cssmap)).andReturn(mockOutputStream);
+
testLogger, cssResource/com.test.Bundle.cssMethod.cssmap)).andReturn(mockOutputStream);
EasyMock.expect(mockGeneratorContext.commitResource(testLogger,
mockOutputStream)).andReturn(
mockGeneratedResource);
+
+JMethod method = EasyMock.createMock(JMethod.class);
+JClassType bundleType = EasyMock.createMock(JClassType.class);
+EasyMock.expect(method.getEnclosingType()).andReturn(bundleType);
+
EasyMock.expect(bundleType.getQualifiedSourceName()).andReturn(com.test.Bundle);
+EasyMock.expect(method.getName()).andReturn(cssMethod);
+
EasyMock.replay(mockResourceContext);
EasyMock.replay(mockGeneratorContext);
+EasyMock.replay(method);
+EasyMock.replay(bundleType);
CssResourceGenerator crg = new CssResourceGenerator();
-crg.outputCssMapArtifact(testLogger, mockResourceContext,
testMap,
[gwt-contrib] Re: Hosted mode without plugin
Fresh idea. and what about implementing debugger in an applet? :) -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: Hosted mode without plugin
Not real fresh, but still edible... I send the below to the google-web-tool...@googlegroups.com list last week, but I can't find a link to it via groups.google.com. Maybe it got held for moderation? eric --- Anyways, I think it's entirely possible. Here's the solution -- ditch the plugins entirely. Instead, develop a Java applet that functions as a JPDA server that knows how to translate the state of the running GWT app into the JPDA protocol so a remote Java debugger can understand it. The applet would be embedded into the module's primary .html page. The concept of devmode basically goes away and instead the GWT compiler would have a DEBUG output format which would include code that passes state information to the JPDA Java applet as the javascript executes. Have youse guys considered anything like this? The JPDA applet is just a SMOP, but I'd have to guess adding a DEBUG output format to the GWT compiler would be pretty big. F5/Refresh performance would need consideration in this too. It's a totally half-baked idea right now, but I wanted to toss it out to see if the smarties at google think it's worth further thought. On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Tomasz Gawel tomaszga...@op.pl wrote: Fresh idea. and what about implementing debugger in an applet? :) -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: ui:with to set property values (issue1524803)
No shouting from here :-) As soon as we get the attributes thing out of the way, maybe we should sit down and try to figure out some definite solution for this precedence thing? On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 2:19 PM, rj...@google.com wrote: LGTM I agree, I don't think you're making things worse, just subject to the same problems that are already there. I'll submit this today or tomorrow presuming Rafa doesn't shout me down. Thanks for this! On 2011/10/03 04:46:22, justin_hickman wrote: Any updates to this issue? From my investigations, the behavior with the ui:attributes element exhibits identical behavior to what is already in uibinder using just Widget references. http://gwt-code-reviews.**appspot.com/1524803/http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1524803/ -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
