Great news!
This will allow a faster implementation of com.google.gwt.dom.client.*
On 12 dic, 20:05, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote:
Ray, great timing. Bob was just talking about having started a patch to
allow this.
@Bob: care to comment?
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Ray Cromwell
, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Andrés Testi
andres.a.te...@gmail.comwrote:
Or even, implementing org.w3c.dom.* natively ;-)
On 13 dic, 00:21, Andrés Testi andres.a.te...@gmail.com wrote:
Great news!
This will allow a faster implementation of com.google.gwt.dom.client.*
On 12 dic, 20
I know this thread should be posted in the GWT developer group, but
since runAsync() is planned for future releases, I think this group is
a better place to post my question. I'm involved in a modular
project, distributed as a core with dependencies, where the customer
pays for aditional
Ray:
What happends if you extends ArrayList to avoid generics?:
class RangeAxisArrayList extends ArrayListRangeAxis{}
- Andrés
On 23 ene, 16:52, Ray Cromwell cromwell...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's the scoop. I changed a field in Chronoscope from RangeAxis[] to
ListRangeAxis and suffered ~50%
A common situation using generators is write instantiation code to
inject instances of non-generated classes. For example:
String newFooExpr(String name){
return new + Foo.class.getName() + ( + name + );
}
String initializationExpr(Class? cls, String varName, String expr){
return
Having a function like:
function d(){
return function(){};
}
... class declarations like:
function Foo(){}
... could be reduced to:
var Foo=d()
... reducing compiled code by 5 characters for each declaration.
- Andrés
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Even more code reduction could be done declaring all vars in the same
place:
function Foo1(){}
function Foo2(){}
function Foo3(){}
... could be reduced to
var Foo1=d(),Foo2=d(),Foo3=d();
- Andrés
On 2 jul, 19:11, Andrés Testi andres.a.te...@gmail.com wrote:
Having a function like
Currently I am writing a generator to produce class mappers. Mapped
classes must contain a default constructor like the current RPC
serializable classes. Since the new deRPC can instantiate classes
without invoking static constructors: ¿Will the JavaScript
instanciator be available from JSNI in
UiBinder is awesome!
An extra degree of decoupling, could be done by adding the next stuff
to the UiBinder interface:
public interface UiBinderU, O {
U createAndBindUi(O owner);
public static interface PairU, O{
R getRoot();
O getOwner();
}
PairU, O createAndBindUi();
}
How the UiBinder fits in the MVP architecture proposed at the google I/
O talks? (http://code.google.com/intl/es-AR/events/io/sessions/
GoogleWebToolkitBestPractices.html)
Regards.
- Andrés
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
and easily
testable components. Even if you don't use the framework, I highly recommend
reading their best
practices:http://puremvc.org/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,174/
- Amir
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 2:27 AM, Andrés Testi andres.a.te...@gmail.comwrote:
How the UiBinder fits
Additionally, DOM overlay types could be generalized with JSO Single
Impl interfaces.
On 17 ago, 15:16, Matt Mastracci matt...@mastracci.com wrote:
Joel,
This is definitely a can of worms! I spent some time thinking through
the some of these points. Some additional comments inline...
Check this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit-contributors/browse_thread/thread/4239559936d327e7/
On 1 nov, 11:01, Bart Guijt bgu...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear GWT'ers,
I'd like to propose a new GWT compiler transformation mechanism
involving Async calls.
I am working
+1 for databinding
+1 for better grids
+1 for enterprise examples, (CRUD applications)
Why not isolate the event framework to use it in non GWT projects?
- Andrés
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Done that this.getClass() is well known at compile time, could be a
great improvement to adding support for GWT.create(this.getClass()).
For example, Guice/GIN TypeLiteralT is not fully emulated in web
mode because it's impossible to determine WTH is the type parameter T
(not support for equals(),
no way to statically
determine the type of 'this'
-Ray
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Andrés Testi andres.a.te...@gmail.com
wrote:
Done that this.getClass() is well known at compile time, could be a
great improvement to adding support for GWT.create(this.getClass()).
For example, Guice
Since events API core in com.google.gwt.event.shared has not JSNI nor
static dependencies, it could be externalized as an API isolated from
GWT. Why not include it on Guava for non GWT projects?
Regards.
- Andrés
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Hi:
The spanish version of the GWT product page is out of date. The page
was not updated since GWT 1.7. Can I contribute to update the page to
GWT 2.1?
Regards.
- Andrés
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
+1 for this!
Are there similar plans for com.google.gwt.i18n?
Also com.google.gwt.event could be useful in non GWT projects.
Regards.
- Andrés
On 25 mar, 18:19, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
RequestFactory is proving itself useful in non-GWT contexts, so we would
like to give it more
GWT's i18n adds compile time checking, type checking for constants and
amazing plural support. Treating with string based property bundles is
a pain.
Regards.
- Andrés
On 25 mar, 19:14, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Andrés Testi andres.a.te
Why bindery package is nested in a web package? Are these APIs not
available for non web applications?
Regards.
- Andrés
On 31 mar, 01:19, rj...@google.com wrote:
Ready for review. John, can you keep me honest on the treatment of
com.google.gwt.event.shared, and the choices made in the new
You're reading web to mean HTML. I'm reading it as app that talks to a
web service, regardless of what it's written in.
I really like the GWT event model and want to use it in Guice
applications to raise bussiness rules, dispatch entity lifecycle
events, etc.. I think this events API is useful
Since ServiceLayerCache enforces service instances to be singleton,
the threadlocal instance will be the same between requests.
I reported this issue:
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=6355
- Andrés
On 24 mayo, 14:15, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
The blog post
Since IsWidget is a first class interface, what is the use case to use
Composite instead of simply implement IsWidget?
Thanks in advance.
- Andrés
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
at 5:31 AM, Andrés Testi
andres@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Hi Ray. I would like to add your proposal to my patch and generalize
GWT.create() relaxation. I think your annotation @GwtCreate(generator=...)
would solve my problem with the GWT frameworks tendency to instantiate
everything
on that.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Andrés Testi
andres@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Ray:
I'm writing a design doc like Nextgen GWT/JS Interop, but for
Relaxation of GWT.create(). I don't know if there are previous official
efforts to bring something like this to life, but if so, I would
This reminds me a lot of Scala macros research. As you probably know, Scala
solves code-gen issues with experimental support for several kinds of
macros, distinguishing clearly between expression-level and type-level code
generation/rewriting.
APT covers only a fraction of type-level
I miss this line in my dagger example:
CoffeeApp coffeeApp = objectGraph.get(CoffeeApp.class);
El sábado, 10 de agosto de 2013 16:23:50 UTC-3, Andrés Testi escribió:
This reminds me a lot of Scala macros research. As you probably know,
Scala solves code-gen issues with experimental support
I've been working on a prototype inspired by Ray Cromwell's proposal for
@GwtCreate parameters, borrowing some ideas from Scala implicit macros. I
apologize for not to post this in the Possible GWT.create() Improvements
thread, but this message is too long to be only a comment.
You can check
I've been working on a prototype inspired by Ray Cromwell's proposal for
@GwtCreate parameters, borrowing some ideas from Scala implicit macros. I
apologize for not to post this in the Possible GWT.create() Improvements
thread, but this message is too long to be only a comment.
You can check
I've been working on a prototype inspired by Ray Cromwell's proposal for
@GwtCreate parameters, borrowing some ideas from Scala implicit macros. I
apologize for not to post this in the Possible GWT.create() Improvements
thread, but this message is too long to be only a comment.
You can check
I forgot to upload the @GwtCreate annotation. You can find It here
https://gwt-review.googlesource.com/#/c/4111/
Regards
- Andrés
El viernes, 16 de agosto de 2013 06:30:15 UTC-3, Andrés Testi escribió:
I've been working on a prototype inspired by Ray Cromwell's proposal for
@GwtCreate
JEnumTypeTest doesn't fails anymore, I think the issue was solved yesterday
:-)
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups GWT
Contributors group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
, this looks amazing! I've been out this week on vacation but
returning tomorrow, I'll take a look when I return.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:22 AM, Andrés Testi
andres@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I've been working on a prototype inspired by Ray Cromwell's proposal for
@GwtCreate
BTW consider that I forgot to commit @GwtCreate annotation, you can find it
here: https://gwt-review.googlesource.com/#/c/4111/
Where I wrote Further Improvements, I meant Upcoming Improvements (I'm
not native english speaker)
- Andrés
--
Hi James, thanks for your feedback!
Note that the @GwtCreate class parameters aren't replaced by
GwtCreateFactory as was originally suggested by Ray Cromwell. This provides
access to actual parameters.
It would be possible to do a full replacement if the factory also gave
access to
Hi Brian, thanks for the feedback!
What you proposes is not so hard to add, but I want the API end users to
not have to deal with GWT.create() at all.
El lunes, 19 de agosto de 2013 19:18:24 UTC-3, Brian Slesinsky escribió:
Interesting. I like the idea of replacing class parameters with
As an alternative to what Goktug proposed about macros, we would have an
equivalent to Scala macros (sorry for insisting with Scala :-) )
@Macro(SumGenerator.class)
Integer sum(Integer arg0, Integer arg1) {
// We will never be here
return null;
}
// rebind space
class
Where is the gwt-customchecks.jar file referred in eclipse/README.txt? Is
it no longer required to configure codecheck?
Thanks in advance.
- Andrés Testi
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Thanks Michael!
I will search it.
- Andrés Testi
El viernes, 18 de octubre de 2013 12:51:40 UTC-3, Michael Vogt escribió:
Hello.
I found it in the old svn repository. Sorry can't provide the link right
now, but you'll find it with your preferred search engine ;-)
Hope this helps
Thanks Thomas. I think it should be removed from eclipse/README.txt.
- Andrés Testi
El domingo, 20 de octubre de 2013 13:25:24 UTC-3, Thomas Broyer escribió:
On Friday, October 18, 2013 5:30:25 PM UTC+2, Andrés Testi wrote:
Where is the gwt-customchecks.jar file referred in eclipse
Thanks Colin! I'm glad to see the power of the community in action :-)
- Andrés Testi
El lunes, 21 de octubre de 2013 19:59:53 UTC-3, Colin Alworth escribió:
Tentative patch up at https://gwt-review.googlesource.com/5063 - can
someone sanity check it for me? It looks like step 4 (now step 3
The changes may be small and easy, but consequences may be great. In this
case, your change will save lots of useless google searches to newbie
contributors ;-)
- Andrés Testi
El martes, 22 de octubre de 2013 10:32:43 UTC-3, Colin Alworth escribió:
If only *all* of my changes were that easy
I just found this class in the master but I can't find references to it.
Where is ReboundTypeRecorder intended to be used?
Thanks.
- Andrés Testi
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups GWT
Thanks for the clarification, John. Does this mean that
UnifyAst.UnifyVisitor.handleGwtCreate() will be deprecated/removed? I'm
afraid because I'm working on a prototype with heavy changes on
handleGwtCreate().
- Andrés Testi
El viernes, 25 de octubre de 2013 16:17:55 UTC-3, John Stalcup
handle, I will stop the merges. My intention is to have a working prototype
to discuss possible improvements.
My proposal is only syntactic sugar on GWT.create(), mainly source
transformation. I don't think separated compilation will be an issue.
Thanks.
- Andrés Testi
El viernes, 25 de octubre de
Are other source languages than Java taken into account for GWT 3.0? Is
Jribble considered?
- Andrés Testi
El viernes, 25 de octubre de 2013 13:18:52 UTC-3, Thomas Broyer escribió:
Forwarded from the GWT group, so it's not lost in the middle of support
questions.
Link to the topic
://timepedia.blogspot.com.ar/2009/03/relaxing-constraints-on-gwtcreate.html
- Rebinding Methods proposal:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K25f6-Hxtlj31pthapfUhmNxS1OPiUXZFtHDnHGjrpg
- Working prototype: https://github.com/andrestesti/gwt-rebindingmethods
Thanks in advance.
- Andrés Testi
--
http
Thanks, Juan Pablo. You are welcome :-)
El jueves, 28 de noviembre de 2013 11:21:39 UTC-3, juan_pablo_gardella
escribió:
Thanks Andrés! Great work
2013/11/28 Andrés Testi andres@gmail.com javascript:
The last 3 months I have been working on a GWT Improvement Proposal
inspired
.
If you read the Future Work section of my proposal, you will find that
I'm proposing a GWT-free API, implemented as a Java 8 compiler plugin
(extension point). As today GWT compiler is not pluggable, we must modify
the compiler to explore these options.
Thanks for your feedback!
- Andrés Testi
-Hxtlj31pthapfUhmNxS1OPiUXZFtHDnHGjrpg/edit?hl=esforcehl=1#bookmark=id.588al1rpv8u9
section.
Regards.
- Andrés Testi
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups GWT
Contributors group.
To unsubscribe from
(It already exists!).
Anyway, it's really exciting to see your contributions, Andres, your
write up was very good.
You are welcome, thanks for your feedback!
- Andrés Testi
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
---
You received this message because you
Note that we are currently very closer to the first step of the
externalization plan. We must only refactor 2 classes.
- Andrés Testi
El viernes, 29 de noviembre de 2013 09:49:31 UTC-3, Andrés Testi escribió:
El viernes, 29 de noviembre de 2013 00:51:25 UTC-3, Stephen Haberman
escribió
transformations. I must to elaborate the Implementation Details section
to clear doubts.
Thanks for read and annotate the proposal!
- Andrés Testi
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups GWT
it!
- Andrés Testi
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
---
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 google-web-toolkit
Regards.
- Andrés Testi
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
---
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 google-web-toolkit
BTW, my implementation of GWT.jsni() with rebinding methods was just to
show the power of the proposal, not to support the inclusion of the method.
El martes, 17 de diciembre de 2013 09:28:25 UTC-3, Andrés Testi escribió:
Honestly, I think JSNI should be fully removed from GWT, even GWT.jsni
I have the same problem.
- Andrés Testi
El miércoles, 22 de enero de 2014 09:07:08 UTC-3, Honza Rameš escribió:
Hello everyone,
I'm using master for my projects and after I updated to commit 5a972863
(Added monolithic/separate branching to JavaToJavaScriptCompiler) suddenly
I wasn't able
.
CompilerContext.getModule() seems to return null here:
https://github.com/gwtproject/gwt/blob/master/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/UnifiedAst.java#L137
- Andrés Testi
El miércoles, 22 de enero de 2014 15:45:35 UTC-3, John Stalcup escribió:
Yeah that does look to be related to my commit.
Which
Thanks!
- Andrés Testi
El miércoles, 22 de enero de 2014 16:39:45 UTC-3, John Stalcup escribió:
Yeah. It seems that CompilePermsServer doesn't have a ModuleDef instance,
so it's not populating compilerContext.getModule(), which laters causes
compilerContext.getModule().isMonolithic
for
SourceWriter family in order to reduce GWT core and increase compatibility
with external tools?
- Andrés Testi
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups GWT
Contributors group.
To unsubscribe from
() .
- Andrés Testi
El jueves, 27 de febrero de 2014 22:02:14 UTC-3, Ray Cromwell escribió:
I think if we move to APT, you can do AST based code-gen via something
like a JavaWriter to a stream, or if we adopt lombok, then you construct
code by directly manipulating the trees of JavaC and JDT
cases.
- Andrés Testi
El viernes, 28 de febrero de 2014 11:07:59 UTC-3, Thomas Broyer escribió:
JavaWriter has many small limitations, and in the case of GWT, the main
one is that it's impossible to make it emit JSNI methods (other limitations
include: annotations on method arguments
Nice!
- Andrés Testi
El viernes, 28 de febrero de 2014 15:11:35 UTC-3, Thomas Broyer escribió:
On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:35:41 PM UTC+1, Andrés Testi wrote:
However I think that JavaWriter is still a valid option for non JSNI
code, and the API will evolve to support more use cases
.
- Andrés Testi
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
---
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 google-web-toolkit-contributors
in
Java by extending it without red squigglies.
+1
Lombok by contrast required seperate Java IDE plugins for IntelliJ and
Eclipse to make this happen.
This is another reason why I don't like Lombok. It's not legal Java, tools
will not work without special support.
- Andrés Testi
--
http
Take a look at this comment of Kevin Bourillion about we they dislike
Lombok. I couldn't have said It
better:
http://www.reddit.com/r/java/comments/1y9e6t/ama_were_the_google_team_behind_guava_dagger/cfjf5v5
- Andrés Testi
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
67 matches
Mail list logo
