Thanks guys!
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.comwrote:
We just upgraded 3 apps too, with one gotcha: it turns out that you need to
do a find/replace on com.google.gwt.requestfactory.client. -
com.google.web.bindery.requestfactory.gwt.client. before you
do
LGTM++
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:27 AM, unn...@google.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1425811/diff/5001/user/test/com/google/gwt/uibinder/test/client/LazyWidgetBuildersTest.java
File
user/test/com/google/gwt/uibinder/test/client/LazyWidgetBuildersTest.java
(right):
It is already the case that you can use IsWidget interfaces as elements in a
ui.xml file.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Stephen Haberman
stephen.haber...@gmail.com wrote:
It looks like that would fix
Huh. Yeah, that is interesting. Is the widgets must extend Widget
restriction being
Okay, done, now with passing JRE tests.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 2:35 PM, rj...@google.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1420814/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Turns out the useLazyWidget stuff isn't passing all of the UiBinder tests
yet. Ignoring that path for now seems reasonable. Sorry for the flip flop.
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 3:19 PM, rj...@google.com wrote:
Oh, the base class exists already:
com.google.gwt.text.shared.AbstractSafeHtmlRendererT
You sure? I kind of liked how you changed this to always run, and explain to
the user what flag to set to make it go.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 5:43 PM, her...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: rjrjr, jat,
Description:
LazyPanel parser should be enabled only if useLazyWidgetBuilders is
enabled.
the
proper message.
2. let things as is and register the new LazyPanel parser only if the flag
is enabled
Due to the urgency of things I went with #2.
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
You sure? I kind of liked how you changed this to always run
I'm getting up to my elbows in there too, trying to narrow the exposure of
ClientFactory. John, are there particular spots I should avoid?
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 5:27 AM, Rodrigo Chandia rchan...@google.comwrote:
No problem.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 8:20 AM, jlaba...@google.com wrote:
Or
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 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):
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
Thanks for the quick update, looking now.
One thought (doesn't gate this patch): I wonder if your code bloat problem
would go away if your Widgets classes were JSOs.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:03 AM, her...@google.com wrote:
Re: gin, the dependencies will be too complicated for a sample. And this is
simple enough that we can just do what gin would have done by hand, makes it
a better illustration really.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:03 PM, jlaba...@google.com wrote:
If Rodrigo has time to add Editors, its likely to
Thanks for the review.
At this point I'm not even sure what advice I would give, so I'm going to
hold off on the do not use bit.
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:03 PM, b...@google.com wrote:
LGTM.
This looks like a job for…bobv!
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Daniel Bell daniel.r.b...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi All,
I just submitted a patch to Rietveld, but wasn't sure who to add to review
it. Would somebody mind reviewing it for me?
Cheers,
Daniel
On 19 April 2011 03:11,
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:39 AM, zh...@google.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1380807/diff/11003/user/src/com/google/gwt/user/rebind/rpc/Shared.java
File user/src/com/google/gwt/user/rebind/rpc/Shared.java (right):
Done, should submit soon.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:13 AM, rj...@google.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1394803/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
LGTM
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:16 AM, sbruba...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: rjrjr,
Description:
Remove stray reference to ElementFactory
Review by: rj...@google.com
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1423801/
Affected files:
M
LGTM
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:00 AM, b...@google.com wrote:
Updated the patch, remembering to move the client.impl code into
autobean.gwt.client.impl.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1414803/diff/1/user/src/com/google/web/bindery/autobean/vm/AutoBeanFactorySource.java
File
Sorry for chiming in so late. Does the UmbrellaException constructor really
need to be public? IIRC, won't GWT RPC be happy enough with a protected or
package private constructor?
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:44 AM, schen...@google.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1395804/
--
Thanks for he confirmation. I'll get it, I'm in there right now anyway.
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 3:31 PM, schen...@google.com wrote:
Passes tests if the constructor is private. Would you like me to change
it?
Cheers,
Stephen.
On 2011/04/13 22:20:12, rjrjr wrote:
Sorry for chiming in so
We've tried to get better about that kind of thing over the years. The
widgets you listed are among our oldest.
The new widget family described at
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/wiki/CellBackedWIdgets should be
better on this score. Re: Tree in particular, you might consider trying
I don't think it's reasonable to ask Eric to tweak the auto formatter. We
had that conversation already. He's just doing the same thing we have
eclipse configured to do, right?
I can't look for real right now. Did you really find something aggregious?
On Apr 5, 2011 9:34 AM, p...@google.com
We were only concerned about public api. Do you see anything we're missing
there?
On Apr 1, 2011 3:09 PM, Thomas Broyer t.bro...@gmail.com wrote:
Note that AutoBeanUtils uses WeakMapping which lives in
com.google.gwt.core.client (yes, this is a client class used in
shared,
and thus server code;
We want to be able to experiment with non-GWT clients of web services,
particularly via RequestFactory. But I have to put emphasis on the word
experiment. Non-GWT won't be a supported path soon, if ever.
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Andrés Testi andres.a.te...@gmail.comwrote:
Why bindery
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:16 AM, John LaBanca jlaba...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:38 AM, John LaBanca jlaba...@google.comwrote:
I don't think Andrés was asking why they weren't in the gwt package.
He's
mission?
Thanks,
John LaBanca
jlaba...@google.com
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
We want to be able to experiment with non-GWT clients of web services,
particularly via RequestFactory. But I have to put emphasis on the word
experiment. Non-GWT won't
ping
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 1:41 PM, rj...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: fabbott,
Description:
Adds a no-op emulation of TestSuite, to prevent error spam (or outright
failure under -strict mode) in web mode tests that accidentally pick
the things up in their class path.
Please review
pong. The queue is deep…
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:42 AM, jlaba...@google.com wrote:
ping
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1394802/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Or do I mean that the stack is long? So many metaphors to muddle, so little
time.
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
pong. The queue is deep…
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:42 AM, jlaba...@google.com wrote:
ping
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1394802
The LayoutPanels' already swap properly in RTL locales, don't they?
http://gwt.google.com/samples/Showcase/Showcase.html?locale=ar_YE
http://gwt.google.com/samples/Showcase/Showcase.html?locale=en
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jeff Larsen larse...@gmail.com wrote:
In some instances, it
LGTM
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:40 PM, jlaba...@google.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1394802/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
It's still unclear to me that your AbstractAsyncActivity actually works. It
seems like it will just produce a single split point, as Thomas suggested of
my first patch here. Have you seen it make multiple fragments?
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Antoine DESSAIGNE
antoine.dessai...@gmail.com
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:26 AM, akito.noz...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a simple question on one of the test. As I was making this
correction I noticed that one of my test case comment is wrong.
The last remove test is actually incorrect (my comment). My question is
what is the expected output
I wasn't trying to catch the bug, I was trying to illustrate the bits that
work already.
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 3:18 PM, pjul...@gmail.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1395802/diff/1/user/test/com/google/gwt/event/shared/ResettableEventBusTest.java
File
Yes, it's true, we spaced that EventBus is part of GWT's public API. We're
now thinking that the new packages will be:
com.google.bindery.event
com.google.bindery.autobean
com.google.bindery.requestfactory
Patches should start appearing this week.
Note that this is strictly a refactoring of
RequestFactory is proving itself useful in non-GWT contexts, so we would
like to give it more independence. Our plan with the GWT 2.3 release is to
copy com.google.gwt.requestfactory to com.google.requestfactory, and
deprecate everything in the old location. We will also provide a jar
Thanks, I'll look at this today.
On Mar 24, 2011 9:08 AM, Akito Nozaki akito.noz...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure how this contributing thing works. I was assuming that things get
pushed here automatically if I created an issue at the review site.
I uploaded some code to deal with memory leak in
Yeah, Dan made the valiant effort here but I don't think it's practical. I
don't feel bad asking users to change import statements to pick up bug
fixes.
It would be great if we can get this into the 2.3 rc.
On Mar 24, 2011 7:05 AM, Daniel Rice (דניאל רייס) r...@google.com wrote:
I spent a few
Antoine, I think the Appearance plan is closer to what you want than
you realize.
In particular, you should know that we're working on a change to
UiBinder to allow it to generate SafeHtmlRenderer instances, and then
to allow those instances to manage cell event handling. We'll share a
design
Christoph, can you take this review?
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:04 AM, t.bro...@gmail.com wrote:
I tried to limit the changes to non-formatting ones. I also didn't go as
far as http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1384801 wrt error handling to
limit the amount of changes and avoid merge
Thanks for the patches!
No on noticed them because you didn't set a reviewer. Since you are
addressing specific items on the issue tracker, the owners of those tickets
would be the right targets. It's also a good idea to append the urls of the
patches to the tickets.
rjrjr
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011
To your specific questions:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
Thanks for the patches!
No on noticed them because you didn't set a reviewer. Since you are
addressing specific items on the issue tracker, the owners of those tickets
would be the right targets
Ah, I'm a liar, you did update the patches in question.
It's perfeclty reasonable to ping the issue itself, or calling us to task on
this list like you did. I apologize that we all left you hanging like this.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
To your specific
[+google-...@googlegroups.com]
What dependency? DI is a pattern, not a commitment to a particular
framework. That said, I agree that taking AsyncProvider from Gin is a bit
presumptuous. I meant to include the gin community on this patch, adding
them now.
What do you think, folks? The goal here
LGTM, SGTM, 10-4
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 7:36 AM, j...@google.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1355802/diff/21001/user/test/com/google/gwt/i18n/server/MockMessageCatalogContext.java
File user/test/com/google/gwt/i18n/server/MockMessageCatalogContext.java
(right):
It's in svn only. We haven't included it in release jars yet, it's too raw.
On Mar 9, 2011 4:47 AM, codesite-nore...@google.com wrote:
Comment by mail.mic...@googlemail.com:
Where is the com.google.gwt.validation package? I cannot find it
For more information:
Makes sense, but let's file a follow up issue on that rather than block this
patch.
On Mar 9, 2011 9:04 AM, x...@google.com wrote:
This is really great! It pretty much completely removes uibinder out of
the security-relevant codebase.
Does the new IE9 value for user.agent imply yet another permutation? We
should really avoid that if we can, and so far it sounds like it might not
be needed. Can we introduce IE9 without causing a new hard perm?
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:07 AM, j...@google.com wrote:
Mostly LGTM
Needs a unit
LGTM
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:04 AM, jlaba...@google.com wrote:
LGTM
But please format all files.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1369807/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/DefaultSelectionProperty.java
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/DefaultSelectionProperty.java
But we *don't* distinguish ie7 and ie8, and IIRC that was to avoid making a
new permutation.
At the very least, why don't we collapse the ie9 permutation by default if
we can?
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:35 AM, j...@google.com wrote:
A user can already collapse the permutations using softperms,
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 8:12 AM, j...@google.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1355802/diff/10001/user/src/com/google/gwt/i18n/client/impl/plurals/DefaultRule.java
File user/src/com/google/gwt/i18n/client/impl/plurals/DefaultRule.java
(right):
LGTM
Rietveld seems to be ignoring the binary file. Saw it offline, nice
improvement
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 9:55 AM, rj...@google.com wrote:
Is the new one in a separate patch? I don't see it here.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1371805/
--
LGTM
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:52 AM, b...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: rjrjr,
Description:
Use RequestContext-local AutoBeanFactory.
Fix unmade change due to branch merge problem.
Patch by: bobv
Review by: rjrjr
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1368805/
LGTM
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:03 AM, jbrosenb...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: rjrjr, kjin,
Description:
Increase Stack Size for ant tests, to prevent test failures (address
issue 6100)
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1369806/
Affected files:
M
LGTM
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 12:17 PM, skybr...@google.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1374802/diff/1/user/src/com/google/gwt/junit/JUnitShell.java
File user/src/com/google/gwt/junit/JUnitShell.java (right):
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 6:41 AM, zun...@google.com wrote:
LGTM: oops, looks like I never sent this comment
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1371802/diff/1/eclipse/settings/code-style/gwt-format.xml
File eclipse/settings/code-style/gwt-format.xml (right):
Patrick, did you file an issue about this?
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Patrick Julien pjul...@gmail.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1159801/show
Introduces an autobean is frozen issue. The problem is that the
workingCopy variable that is introduced doesn't cause
Do you mean patches for CellTable? It's part of GWT, so the usual way:
http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/makinggwtbetter.html
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 3:30 AM, dflorey daniel.flo...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the info!
I guess I'll wait until 2.3 and will start to port the TreeTable + filter
LGTM
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 8:34 AM, rchan...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: rjrjr, Nick Chalko,
Description:
Added validation jars to 'devmode' and 'test.dev' targets in ant
webAppCreator templates
Fixes Issue 5950.
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1352807/show
I'm confused by your last comment, I guess we need to decide..., which
points back to this issue. Who are you asking to choose between what?
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:38 AM, rchan...@google.com wrote:
ping
On 2011/02/09 15:22:04, rchandia wrote:
Removed the hibernate validation
I can't find a way to weight the line breaks, to make it resort to
assignments last. I'll drop this one.
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:57 AM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:51 PM, zun...@google.com wrote:
Well, I personally like the way it looks:
this.myPackage
If Dave has already LGTM'd one of the approaches as maven friendly, is there
any reason not to go with that? What are the trade offs?
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Rodrigo Chandia rchan...@google.comwrote:
El 11 de febrero de 2011 13:19, Nick Chalko ncha...@google.com escribió:
On Fri,
I was *convinced* those two numbers were the same. Dueling 803's!
I agree, the de-bundled one smells a lot better. LGTM'd it.
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Rodrigo Chandia rchan...@google.comwrote:
El 11 de febrero de 2011 14:48, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com escribió:
If Dave has already
, Eric Ayers zun...@google.com wrote:
Was the intention to require all expressions to be put on a new line,
or only when the dots are preceeded by whitespace?
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
That's pretty bad. I'll tweak. Even if we can't have perfect builders
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 7:54 AM, jlaba...@google.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1295806/diff/1/10
File user/src/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/HTMLTable.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1295806/diff/1/10#newcode1105
Okay, ready for re-review.
Less ambitious now. Allows foo.bar().baz().bang().imagineManyOfThese(hi
mom); to wrap as:
foo.bar().baz().bang()
.imagineManyOfThese(hi mom);
instead of what happens now:
foo.bar().baz().bang().imagineManyOfThese(
hi mom);
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at
I did the spot check that John suggested. Most files stay more or less in
tact. The ones that do change look a lot more readable in the new style,
IMHO.
E.g., try using this style on RequestFactoryTest (Bob, you in particular
might want to weigh in here).
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:36 PM,
webAppCreator generates a pom.xml? When did that start happening?
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:28 AM, David Chandler drfibona...@google.comwrote:
Just this in the POM. These are required to use RequestFactory, but not
required otherwise, so we should probably note that in the POM, too.
Neato.
Don't you need to make the same changes to samples/expenses/pom.xml?
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:55 AM, rchan...@google.com wrote:
On 2011/02/08 18:36:31, rjrjr wrote:
webAppCreator generates a pom.xml? When did that start happening?
Somewhere before GWT 2.1 for Google I/O 2010.
It's not so much about missing features (although it will be nice to be
allowed to use and emulate features that were added to the language more
than four years ago). It's more about being in step with the rest of
Google's code base. Having to keep an eye out for 1.6'ism creeping in has
been a
You can't do these things yet, but we've been discussing them.
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Krishna krishnacal...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Does RequestFactory EntityProxy supports AutoBean Category (http://
code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/wiki/AutoBean#Categories) ?
i. e. Can I define
Re: forcing layout, could that turn into a source of slowness in apps, where
we force recalculation that turns out to be redundant?
On Feb 4, 2011 6:41 AM, jlaba...@google.com wrote:
I updated DeckLayoutPanel to implement AcceptsOneWidget, and I moved the
animationDuration down from
AM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
Re: forcing layout, could that turn into a source of slowness in apps,
where we force recalculation that turns out to be redundant?
On Feb 4, 2011 6:41 AM, jlaba...@google.com wrote:
I updated DeckLayoutPanel to implement AcceptsOneWidget, and I moved
LGTM
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 6:40 PM, b...@google.com wrote:
Patch updated.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1340802/diff/1/2
File user/src/com/google/gwt/editor/client/EditorContext.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1340802/diff/1/2#newcode114
Wait, I'm not sure we can do that. Dave Chandler, is this the kind of thing
that upset the maven community last time around?
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:55 AM, rchan...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: rjrjr, Nick Chalko,
Description:
Added missing validation jars to gwt-user.jar. Fixes Issue
code, what is?
The other two jars you describe as an interim step. How short an interim are
we talking about? The answer has to be before 2.3 is cut.
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
Wait, I'm not sure we can do that. Dave Chandler, is this the kind of thing
Oops, PlaceHistoryGeneratorContextTest is failing:
java.lang.NullPointerException
at
com.google.gwt.place.rebind.PlaceHistoryGeneratorContext.getPrefixForTokenizerType(PlaceHistoryGeneratorContext.java:269)
at
I think you could reuse the original rietveld issue, if you haven't closed
it yet.
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Daniel Rice (דניאל רייס)
r...@google.comwrote:
Here's a manual diff. Is there some slick way to upload it to
Mondrian or Rietveld that won't make them confused?
Dan
On Thu,
Submitted at r9582
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:36 PM, larse...@gmail.com wrote:
Awesome, thanks for getting this committed.
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Bob, did this land?
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 2:45 PM, ncha...@google.com wrote:
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1260801/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
I take your point about UiBinder support. You can have your invariant and
bind it too by updating DialogBoxParser (and DialogBoxParserTest) to
optionally handle the new constructor argument.
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 8:02 AM, jlaba...@google.com wrote:
Also, can you sign a CLA so we can accept
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:29 AM, larse...@gmail.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1149803/show
Thanks so much for reviewing this guys.
@Ray,
Do you want me to go back to allowing a setter for the caption?
I certainly wouldn't want to see both the setter and the constructor.
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:53 AM, p...@google.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1296801/diff/7001/8002
File user/src/com/google/gwt/canvas/client/Canvas.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1296801/diff/7001/8002#newcode42
They are, Rietveld is just lame
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 11:09 AM, ncha...@google.com wrote:
LGTM,
except these should be moves not adds, to preserve history.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1276801/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Do similar changes need to be made in Editor, and are you up for that?
Bob, are you able to take this review?
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:01 AM, t.bro...@gmail.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1272801/diff/1/3
File user/src/com/google/gwt/autobean/server/BeanMethod.java (right):
Taking this a bit further, if we're going to be playing with interfaces we
might as well go the whole nine yards:
interface IsTreeItem {
TreeItem asTreeItem();
}
interface HasTreeItems {
void addItem(IsTreeItem);
void addItem(Widget);
void addItem(SafeHtml);
/* No addItem(String),
, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
Taking this a bit further, if we're going to be playing with interfaces we
might as well go the whole nine yards:
interface IsTreeItem {
TreeItem asTreeItem();
}
interface HasTreeItems {
void addItem(IsTreeItem);
void addItem
Please log a buganizer ticket and assign it to flin
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Fred Sauer fre...@google.com wrote:
The test completes successfully on Safari 5.0.2 on OSX in web mode,
although it fails in HTMLUnit. I've marked the
test @DoNotRunWith({Platform.HtmlUnitUnknown})
--
Hey, Jeff.
Happy New Year, and thanks for your patience. I'm looking at this now.
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Jeff Larsen larse...@gmail.com wrote:
bump.
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
--
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 5:37 PM, j...@google.com wrote:
On 2011/01/05 00:14:22, rjrjr wrote:
Are you sure you don't want to introduce the widget and the api at the
same
time?
If you like, I can do a simple version now (similar to the one in
showcase) and the more complicated one I had
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 5:40 PM, jlaba...@google.com wrote:
LGTM
Don't forget test cases.
By which I'm sure John meant before you submit this.
You guys are doing an awesome job with the HTML5 stuff! I can't wait to
see this stuff in action.
PM UTC+1, John A. Tamplin wrote:
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
Basically we don't know exactly how we want to change the thing, but have
a feeling something will be needed. Re: composition or delegation, it always
happens, but I'm not sure that's a concrete
Lgtm
On Dec 9, 2010 3:01 PM, b...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: rjrjr,
Description:
Add some missing docs for RPC utility class.
Patch by: bobv
Review by: rjrjr
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1207801/show
Affected files:
M
Basically we don't know exactly how we want to change the thing, but have a
feeling something will be needed. Re: composition or delegation, it always
happens, but I'm not sure that's a concrete issue yet. We could introduce an
IsActivity interface, but I don't see anywhere in the current GWT code
I hope that doesn't come across as having ignored Neil, John et al. I
do prefer using interface + abstract class, but I don't really believe
that people actually read JavaDoc, and I'm certain we need to mess with
this interface just a bit more.
--
and the ability to override.
Thanks!
- Amir
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
We're making a few breaking changes in 2.1.1 to the new features
introduced in 2.1. (We're not supposed to do that kind of thing, but are
hoping to get away with it in this quick
it anymore.
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
We're making a few breaking changes in 2.1.1 to the new features
introduced
in 2.1. (We're not supposed to do that kind of thing, but are hoping to
get
away with it in this quick follow up release before there is much
Patrick, you're the case in point. Because you don't use the abstract class,
if we change the API later we will break your app.
Were you unable to use the abstract class? If the Activity interface were
documented to encourage you to do so, would you have? When we break your
app, will you be okay
One more question for Patrick: would you be better able to use
AbstractActivity if the IsActivity interface were available?
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
Patrick, you're the case in point. Because you don't use the abstract
class, if we change the API later
101 - 200 of 718 matches
Mail list logo
