Hey guys,
I'd like to help out in any way I can, with bringing Java 8 support to GWT.
Last I heard, the language features like lambdas were done, and only the
APIs were missing. I can help port some of the APIs if that's needed.
Thanks.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
Hi all,
the smoke testing for the release showed up a couple of problems, some of
them need to be fixed before we put RC1 out others can wait until the final
release.
- Dev mode test do not work: issue 8967
https://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=8967
- Smoke
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:05 PM, 'Daniel Kurka' via GWT Contributors
google-web-toolkit-contributors@googlegroups.com wrote:
Hi all,
the smoke testing for the release showed up a couple of problems, some of
them need to be fixed before we put RC1 out others can wait until the final
release.
What is the difference in using the following?
*@JsType(prototype=Window**)* and *@JsType *
It does not become very clear from the documentation.
Here is the interface I implemented:
@JsType(prototype=Window)
public interface MyWindow {
public static abstract class Statics {
public
Fixed the JSON example, it was not a Yahoo issue since the yahoo response
is in a .json file in the project.
The problem is that 2.7.0 disallows entry classes not implementing the
interface EntryPoint.
https://gwt-review.googlesource.com/#/c/9994/
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Manuel Carrasco
GWT.create() doesn't work to create Js interfaces. It's part of the
GWT deferred binding system and can only be bound to concrete Java
subtypes. (GWT.create uses the 'new' operator)
JsInterop is going to move towards Java8 syntax for the use case you
describe, e.g
@JsType
interface Window {
Okay great. But what is the difference between the following?
*@JsType(prototype=Window**)* and *@JsType *
Also could you please explain when to use isNative = true?
Am Dienstag, 28. Oktober 2014 17:06:47 UTC+1 schrieb Ray Cromwell:
GWT.create() doesn't work to create Js interfaces. It's
Hi all,
right now GWT builds with RC1 are failing in Eclipse with GPE since the
gwt-codeserver.jar is not on the build path. The next GPE release (with
changes that fix this) is still a long way out. In order to not be blocking
on this I propose we fold gwt-codeserver.jar into gwt-dev.jar.
This
I like this idea of moving codeserver into core. I think this would make it
easier.
-Brandon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups GWT
Contributors group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
@JsType(prototype=Window) means that x instanceof Window will return
false if the underlying object isn't a Window. That is, the GWT compiler
generates a JS instanceof operator with the specified prototype.
Otherwise, @JsType interfaces are treated like JavaScriptObject overlay
types as far as
Fine for me.
Do you intend to move the sources or just merge the JARs during dist-dev/dist?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups GWT
Contributors group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
I think moving sources right now is too risky and too much work we should
just merge the jars in dist.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Thomas Broyer t.bro...@gmail.com wrote:
Fine for me.
Do you intend to move the sources or just merge the JARs during
dist-dev/dist?
--
You received this
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 8:05 AM, 'Daniel Kurka' via GWT Contributors
google-web-toolkit-contributors@googlegroups.com wrote:
Hi all,
the smoke testing for the release showed up a couple of problems, some of
them need to be fixed before we put RC1 out others can wait until the final
release.
Yes, merging the jars should be fine as a short-term fix.
Codeserver should be built as a separate library to enforce that there are
no circular dependencies. (We already have one for DevMode -superDevMode
but that should be fixed by splitting out DevMode; it doesn't belong in the
same library as
If it is feasible yes. I'm not sure if we can do a designer release at this
point.
We can put back the removed method and mark it deprecated.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Roberto Lublinerman rlu...@google.com
wrote:
I suspect that the designer needs to be recompiled; do you want to provide
15 matches
Mail list logo