[gwt-contrib] Re: Recent browser-specific change to JSONObject

2009-11-17 Thread Sripathi Krishnan 
Sending to the contributors mailing list..

--Sri


2009/11/17 Matt Bishop m...@re-entry.ca

 I am referring to this recent checkin:


 http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/diff?spec=svn6936r=6936format=sidepath=/releases/2.0/user/src/com/google/gwt/json/client/JSONObject.java

 The checkin comment states the change is needed for Chrome, but it is
 checked into the main JSONObject, not into a ChromeJSONObject.  I
 would expect it to be in a Chrome class because:

 1. It would keep the generated code for non-Chrome browsers smaller.
 2. The change itself slows down non-Chrome browsers unnecessarily.

 JSONObject is a well-used object and it is important to keep it as
 small and fast is humanly possible.

 --

 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Google Web Toolkit group.
 To post to this group, send email to google-web-tool...@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comgoogle-web-toolkit%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com
 .
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=.




-- 
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors

[gwt-contrib] Re: Moving PagingScrollTable Friends to Trunk

2009-10-09 Thread Sripathi Krishnan 
Reviving this old thread ..

Has there been a decision on this yet? Just want to know if
PagingScrollTable is likely to make it to trunk in a future release.

--Sri


2009/10/9 Sri sripathikrish...@gmail.com




 -- Forwarded message --
 From: Bruce Johnson br...@google.com
 Date: Jul 16, 3:57 pm
 Subject: Moving PagingScrollTable  Friends to Trunk
 To: Google Web Toolkit Contributors


 Frankly, we've vacillated on it. The problem is that the currently
 implementation, though full-featured, really doesn't scale especially
 well
 even to medium-sized numbers of rows. Trees have the same problem, as
 does
 any similar sort of compound widget.

 Increasingly, we're thinking that we should redefine the whole effort
 into
 designing a family of MVC-style complex widgets. This will require a
 lot of
 design work, and we're pretty sure we won't be able to get it done
 properly
 in the 2.0 timeframe.

 So, in terms of your planning, I'd say plan for it *not* to ship with
 2.0.

 On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 2:15 PM, jay jay.gin...@gmail.com wrote:

  I was under the impression (based on conversations with GWT team
  members) at Google I/O in May), that moving this into trunk for 2.0
  was a sure thing. Has something changed?

  I'll live if this has changed, I'd just like to know. Please...keep us
  informed...

  thanks,

  jay

  On Jul 16, 8:07 am, Isaac Truett itru...@gmail.com wrote:
   Issue #188 has 40 stars, making it number seven in the issue list
   (when sorted appropriately). Let's shoot for number one before John
   gets back to working on it. ;-)

   So if you're anxious for PST to leave the incubator, star this issue:
 http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=188

   - Isaac

   On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:58 AM, John LaBancajlaba...@google.com
  wrote:
We probably won't decide what to move into trunk until we get closer
 to
  the
next release.  I'm working on improving our unit test coverage to
 make
  GWT
more stable, and most of the other UI developers are busy on their
 own
tasks.  Sorry I don't have a better answer, but I'll escalate the
 fact
  that
quite a few people have been asking about the table and would like to
  see it
in trunk.
Thanks,
John LaBanca
jlaba...@google.com

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 6:31 PM, jay jay.gin...@gmail.com wrote:

Bump again? Any status?

thanks...

jay

On Jul 7, 8:40 am, jay jay.gin...@gmail.com wrote:
 bump. Anything?

 On Jun 24, 10:31 am, jay jay.gin...@gmail.com wrote:

  Just curious if the effort has been resumed? Regardless, is
 there
  anyway for you to commit what you do have somewhere we could
 look
  and
  provide feedback?

  thanks,

  jay

  On Jun 10, 8:28 am, John LaBanca jlaba...@google.com wrote:

   @jay - I got side tracked with other tasks, but I'll pick up
 the
   PagingScrollTable effort within a couple of weeks.  The main
  goal
   when we
   transfer the PagingScrollTable to GWT trunk is to separate the
   concept of
   scrolling (with three distinct tables) from the rest of the
  code.
That way,
   we can bulk render a single table element that includes the
   header,data, and
   footer and have it layout naturally.

   @dflorey - I definitely plan to include all three of your
 points
   into the
   scroll table.  Thanks again for all your contributions.

   I don't know exactly how long it will take to integrate
  everything
   into the
   GWT trunk, but its one of my highest priorities.

   Thanks,
   John LaBanca
   jlaba...@google.com

   On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:15 AM, dflorey 
  daniel.flo...@gmail.com
   wrote:

Hi,
I'd like to support this effort and would be glad if some of
  my
changes would make it into trunk:
- filters
- column types for most frequently used column types
(numbers,dates,text) including proper filtering, editing and
sorting
capabilities
- simplified table generation ( see

 http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/wiki/TreeTable
)

(TreeTable is not ready for prime time yet)

Daniel

On 10 Jun., 05:34, jay jay.gin...@gmail.com wrote:
 I saw the initial commit of these classes into your
 branch,
  but
 I
 haven't seen any additional commits. I'd love to take a
 look
  at
 the
 current direction, and see what other input I can provide.

 jay

 On Jun 9, 7:12 am, John LaBanca jlaba...@google.com
  wrote:

  We'll definitely keep these things in mind when moving
  stuff
  over to
GWT
  trunk.  We've also found a lot of general usability
  problems,
  such as
the
  fact the the table doesn't layout naturally, which means
  apps
  require
active
  layout.  During

[gwt-contrib] UiBinder : provided=true and constructor with parameters

2009-09-24 Thread Sripathi Krishnan 
I have a custom widget which has a constructor with some fields.

class HelpWidget extends Composite {
   //usual interface declaration for UiBinder

public HelpWidget(HandlerManager eventBus) {
  .
   initWidget(uibinder.createAndBindUi(this);
}
}

Now, I have another widget which includes HelpWidget in its ui.xml

In PageLayout.ui.xml
--
gwt:HTMLPanel
 custom:HelpWidget ui:field=helpWidget_ /
/gwt:HTMLPanel


In PageLayout.java

..

@UiField (provided = true)
HelpWidget helpWidget_;

public PageLayout() {
   HandlerManager eventBus = new HandlerManager();
   helpWidget_ = new HelpWidget(eventBus);
}

Note that I am instantiating the HelpWidget myself, and I am annotating it
with provided = true.

But when I compile, GWTC complains saying that HelpWidget must have a
default constructor, or must annotate the constructor with @UiConstructor.
If I annotate the constructor with @UiField, it complains that eventBus
parameter must be provided.


If I am taking care of object creation, then UiBinder shouldn't complain
about the constructor, right?

--Sri

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[gwt-contrib] Re: UiBinder : provided=true and constructor with parameters

2009-09-24 Thread Sripathi Krishnan 
Created issue
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=4075

Thanks!

--Sri


2009/9/24 Ray Ryan rj...@google.com

 That's a flat out bug. Would you mind putting something on the issue
 tracker?


 On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Sripathi Krishnan 
 sripathi.krish...@gmail.com wrote:

 I have a custom widget which has a constructor with some fields.

 class HelpWidget extends Composite {
//usual interface declaration for UiBinder

 public HelpWidget(HandlerManager eventBus) {
   .
initWidget(uibinder.createAndBindUi(this);
 }
 }

 Now, I have another widget which includes HelpWidget in its ui.xml

 In PageLayout.ui.xml
 --
 gwt:HTMLPanel
  custom:HelpWidget ui:field=helpWidget_ /
 /gwt:HTMLPanel


 In PageLayout.java
 
 ..

 @UiField (provided = true)
 HelpWidget helpWidget_;

 public PageLayout() {
HandlerManager eventBus = new HandlerManager();
helpWidget_ = new HelpWidget(eventBus);
 }

 Note that I am instantiating the HelpWidget myself, and I am annotating it
 with provided = true.

 But when I compile, GWTC complains saying that HelpWidget must have a
 default constructor, or must annotate the constructor with @UiConstructor.
 If I annotate the constructor with @UiField, it complains that eventBus
 parameter must be provided.


 If I am taking care of object creation, then UiBinder shouldn't complain
 about the constructor, right?

 --Sri





 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---