I'll leave the final word to Brian.
Some minor comments below, but otherwise looks good.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1727807/diff/14001/user/src/com/google/gwt/editor/client/impl/SimpleViolation.java
File user/src/com/google/gwt/editor/client/impl/SimpleViolation.java
(right):
Sorry for not having spotted it in the previous patch set: the new
'private static' methods are not ordered alphabetically (yes, they're in
logical order, but the coding style for GWT mandates alphabetical
ordering...)
Otherwise good (I'd still have splitted the for() loop with the if/else
[junit] Exception in thread pool-1-thread-569
java.lang.NullPointerException [junit] at
com.google.gwt.dev.util.DiskCache.transferToStream(DiskCache.java:187)
[junit] at
com.google.gwt.dev.util.DiskCacheToken.writeObject(DiskCacheToken.java:91)
At the very
Only looked at elemental.json.* so far.
Looks like the Js implementations haven't been used much in DevMode
(which is not really surprising given the super-source implementation of
element.json.Json, which is @GwtScriptOnly, so only an explicit 'new
JsJsonFactory()', or casting a JSO to a
Reviewers: rdayal,
Description:
MeniItem should use ScheduledCommand instead of Command
Repost of 1698803
Thanks Patrick!
Patch by: tucker...@gmail.com
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1726805/
Affected files:
M tools/api-checker/config/gwt24_25userApi.conf
M
Great change, but UiRenderer is not a part of GWT 2.4.0 release while
project's
pom file depend on it. Any comments?
That'd be a bug. I guess it should be 2.5.0, but that version has not
been released yet. What is the Maven way to do this?
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1733805/
--
Reviewers: skybrian, cromwellian,
https://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1727808/diff/1/build.xml
File build.xml (left):
https://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1727808/diff/1/build.xml#oldcode57
build.xml:57: gwt.ant dir=dev/codeserver /
See
On 2012/06/13 16:23:11, kromanovs wrote:
Well, you can add dependency to 2.5.0-SNAPSHOT if it's available in
the maven
central repo. If it's not - then I think it's not yet a time to push
this change
out.
GWT 2.5 is in the process of being released. I rather think it is time
to update the
I've removed the changes concerning javax.validation, so it's still
distributed as a separate JAR.
org.json is now bundled in gwt-dev, no longer bundled into
requestfactory-* JARs, and distributed as a separate JAR in the SDK (so
that requestfactory users have the choice to user
Submitted as r11052
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1726805/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
On 2012/05/25 23:01:27, jat wrote:
LGTM
Committed as r11044.
https://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1716804/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
On 2012/06/08 19:39:13, rdayal wrote:
On 2012/05/22 16:11:49, tbroyer wrote:
LGTM.
Committed a r11045.
https://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1713803/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
We have a few POMs through GWT which need its versions updated for the
release. The question is what to use for version string. We have no process
or infrastructure in place for snapshots so I'd like to keep that out of
this picture.
I propose to use 2.5.0.RCx while we publish release
On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 8:19:52 PM UTC+2, Rodrigo Chandia wrote:
We have a few POMs through GWT which need its versions updated for the
release. The question is what to use for version string. We have no process
or infrastructure in place for snapshots so I'd like to keep that out of
I forgot the mention. The only real change between this and the CL Ray
reviewed was that I added a no-op dependency recorder in the unit test.
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:23 PM, skybr...@google.com wrote:
I don't understand this code, but I wonder if there is any way to write
a smoke test for
At this point, the new code is more complicated than the old code. Is
it worth switching anymore? Did you performance test to see if
element.contains() is faster than the old impl code?
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1725808/
--
Reviewers: rdayal, tbroyer,
Description:
Update POM versions to 2.5.0-rc1
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1734804/
Affected files:
M samples/dynatablerf/pom.xml
M samples/expenses/pom.xml
M samples/mobilewebapp/pom.xml
M samples/validation/pom.xml
Index:
Review at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1734804
On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 2:32:28 PM UTC-4, Thomas Broyer wrote:
On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 8:19:52 PM UTC+2, Rodrigo Chandia wrote:
We have a few POMs through GWT which need its versions updated for the
release. The question is what
Did you performance test to see if element.contains() is
faster than the old impl code?
No, no perf tests.
The old code in DOMImplStandardBase walked the DOM, so I thought it was
a pretty safe assumption that Webkit's .contains would be faster (either
from being a single JS call vs. many or,
LGTM.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1734804/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
I mostly looked over the build process. (Since this is experimental, I
suppose it can all be done later.)
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1728806/diff/1/elemental/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
File elemental/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF (right):
I don't think we support Java 1.5 anymore?
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=6790
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/google-web-toolkit/fATw0rL8lSE/xbxX5Hf8ozUJ
I'm totally fine with dropping support for 1.5 altogether.
- Brian
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:47 AM,
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Brian Slesinsky skybr...@google.comwrote:
I don't think we support Java 1.5 anymore?
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=6790
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/google-web-toolkit/fATw0rL8lSE/xbxX5Hf8ozUJ
I'm totally fine with
Okay, seems fine for now. I'm going to commit this.
https://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1731804/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1731805/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Thomas,
I'm a little knee deep in I/O slide stuff at the moment, so maybe you
can sanity check my thinking here. Let me describe what used to be
happening in the Json stuff and what I was trying to change it to before
2.5, but probably didn't finish.
Essentially, in ProdMode I wanted to run
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1734804/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
LGTM. I can understand the code now and I'm basically okay with it; the
rest is nitpicks.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1727807/diff/15003/user/src/com/google/gwt/editor/client/impl/SimpleViolation.java
File user/src/com/google/gwt/editor/client/impl/SimpleViolation.java
(right):
On 2012/06/13 23:33:46, cromwellian wrote:
Thomas,
I'm a little knee deep in I/O slide stuff at the moment, so maybe
you can
sanity check my thinking here. Let me describe what used to be
happening in the
Json stuff and what I was trying to change it to before 2.5, but
probably didn't
On 2012/06/13 21:45:00, skybrian wrote:
Okay, seems fine for now. I'm going to commit this.
FYI, I just removed all occurrences of json-1.5.jar, so we consistently
use json.jar everywhere.
https://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1731804/
--
Reviewers: cromwellian,
Description:
Introduce -XfragmentCount to replace -XfragmentMerge
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1739804/
Affected files:
M dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/PrecompileTaskOptionsImpl.java
M
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1739804/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Reviewers: skybrian,
Description:
Comment out an invalid test in TreeMapTest.
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1735805/
Affected files:
M user/test/com/google/gwt/emultest/java/util/TreeMapTest.java
Index:
I'm getting failing tests because JSON is gone from gwt-user.jar and the
requestfactory jars. I could add the dependency internal to google, but
I think we might still be trying to do too much at once - this is
looking more like churn than an actual improvement.
To fix the compiler and close
On 2012/06/14 01:33:21, skybrian wrote:
LGTM
It seems like we should also change the web implementation to behave
like JDK 7.
But that can wait.
Unless we are going to upgrade the rest of the JRE to match JDK 7, I
disagree.
More likely, this behavior should be considered undefined and
Reviewers: cromwellian,
Description:
Include json-1.5.jar in gwt-dev.jar. JSON is needed by the Closure
compiler and also to generate source maps.
Fixes issue 7397
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1732804/
Affected files:
M dev/build.xml
M
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1739803/diff/8001/user/src/com/google/gwt/user/cellview/client/CellTreeNodeView.java
File user/src/com/google/gwt/user/cellview/client/CellTreeNodeView.java
(right):
I missed the changes to the other files. This makes the standard impl
simpler and makes all versions of IE use the fixed IE-version. I'll
review it closely and submit tomorrow. Thanks for the patch.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1725808/
--
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1739803/diff/8001/user/src/com/google/gwt/user/cellview/client/CellTreeNodeView.java
File user/src/com/google/gwt/user/cellview/client/CellTreeNodeView.java
(right):
39 matches
Mail list logo
