Missed this, looking now.
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:26 AM, ncha...@google.com wrote:
On 2011/10/13 18:53:54, Nick Chalko wrote:
ping
http://gwt-code-reviews.**appspot.com/1567804/http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1567804/
--
LGTM
On Oct 17, 2011 4:26 PM, ncha...@google.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.**appspot.com/1567804/diff/1/**
user/test/org/hibernate/**jsr303/tck/tests/bootstrap/**customprovider/**
When I run your sample I never see the suggest box. What should I be typing?
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:10 PM, stephen.haber...@gmail.com wrote:
I published a demo here:
http://sh-hello.appspot.com/
http://gwt-code-reviews.**appspot.com/1567803/http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1567803/
LGTM
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:53 AM, scheg...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: rjrjr,
Description:
Generate unique class names in AbstractClientBundleGenerator at design
time.
Please review this at
http://gwt-code-reviews.**appspot.com/1565805/http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1565805/
LGTM
On Oct 6, 2011 5:07 PM, skybr...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: rjrjr,
Description:
Change the superclass of the translatable version of
junit.framework.AssertionFailedError to match the JVM version,
for consistency when catching java.lang.AssertionError in
testing tools.
Fixes issue
Not really practical.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:35 AM, stephen.haber...@gmail.com wrote:
I meant to comment; this would all be a lot simpler if GWT-RPC could
serialize final fields as the default/only behavior (basically remove
any configuration variables to turn it on/off).
I understand
Jeff, how are you launching your app under eclipse? Are you making m2e fire
gwt:run, or are you using Google Plugin for Eclipse Run as Web App?
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:58 AM, Jeff Larsen larse...@gmail.com wrote:
I know I would like it if the RequestFactory stuff was pushed into maven
LGTM
Oops. Thanks Nick. I'll need to remember to put this on the 2.4 branch.
On Sep 13, 2011 7:27 PM, ncha...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: rjrjr,
Description:
Update the checkstule path for validation sample
Fix the @NotSupported count
Please review this at
It's resolved if Nick gives his LGTM
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 9:34 AM, rchan...@google.com wrote:
LGTM. Once the ScriptAssert issue gets resolved.
On 2011/09/12 16:27:34, rjrjr wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.**appspot.com/1537805/http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1537805/
--
LGTM
Nice catch. Is there really no test to extend for this? :-(
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 5:39 PM, cromwell...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: rjrjr,
Description:
When -XdisableClassMetadata is used, Class.getName() can return
Class$SseedNumber as a class name. However, there are other modes
My main problem was that I had lost the web.xml file (duh).
Still trying to figure out the ScriptAssertValidator issue. I wonder if an
extra copy is being pulled in by maven.
On Thu Sep 08 18:15:07 GMT-700 2011, Nick Chalko wrote:
Thanks.
Do I need the validation-api dependency (in any of samples/*/pom.xml), or
does gwt 2.4.0 bring that along?
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 12:09 PM, drfibona...@google.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.**appspot.com/1537805/diff/2002/**
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Nick Chalko ncha...@google.com wrote:
org.hibernate.validator.**constraints.impl.**ScriptAssertValidator
So ScriptAssertValidator should not be getting compiled. Let me try to
find where it is excluded.
LGTM
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:26 PM, rchan...@google.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.**appspot.com/1520810/diff/7016/**maven/lib-gwt.shhttp://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1520810/diff/7016/maven/lib-gwt.sh
File maven/lib-gwt.sh (right):
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Nick Chalko ncha...@google.com wrote:
org.hibernate.validator.**constraints.impl.**ScriptAssertValidator
So ScriptAssertValidator should not be getting compiled. Let me try to
find where
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Nick Chalko ncha...@google.com wrote:
org.hibernate.validator.**constraints.impl.**ScriptAssertValidator
So
This isn't a release notes issue. The deprecation happened quite a while
ago. DevGuideCodingBasicsDelayed.html is very, very out of date.
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Doug Anderson do...@google.com wrote:
Eric:
I can note this and any other deprecation you want in the release notes for
LGTM
On Wed Sep 07 11:50:58 GMT-700 2011, rchan...@google.comgt wrote:
Scott says:
Stephen misunderstands what Dependencies.apiRefs means (which isn't
suprising, it's not well commented).
The simple and qualified references answer the question What references do
I depend on to correctly parse and resolve the source code?
Api refs answer the question What program
Fixed, thanks.
On Monday, September 5, 2011, wrote:
Comment by ido@gmail.com:
In Improved request batching section the sample has typo:
ctxB.requestB().to(new ReceiverBoolean(){});
should be
ctxB.requestB().to(new ReceiverInteger(){});
For more information:
Oh, crazy! I didn't notice that you were invoking it at compile time. And I
suppose that's going to let it fail at compile time instead of runtime,
isn't it? Okey doke.
On Tuesday, September 6, 2011, wrote:
On 2011/09/02 00:01:48, rjrjr wrote:
LGTM
Nice!
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:22 PM, rchan...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: rjrjr, drfibonacci,
Description:
Updates pom.xml to use new Request Factory libraries
Please review this at
http://gwt-code-reviews.**appspot.com/1541803/http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1541803/
Thanks Steve!
We chatted, and Ray C is up for reviewing this, but I'm afraid it'll be the
usual maybe-this-week drill.
On Fri Sep 02 13:06:44 GMT-700 2011, Stephen Haberman wrote:
I'd prefer this problem to be addressed in separate CL independent
from of our effort.
Here is a commit
ping, ready for review
On Thu Sep 01 15:08:29 GMT-700 2011, rj...@google.comgt wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1537803/http://www.google.com/url?sa=Dq=http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1537803/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Woo hoo!
On Thu Sep 01 09:26:47 GMT-700 2011, Grzegorz Kossakowski wrote:
Hello,
I'm excited to announce first milestone of Scala+GWT project.
Download (and then follow README instructions) from here:
http://goo.gl/Ym3xUhttp://www.google.com/url?sa=Dq=http%3A%2F%2Fgoo.gl%2FYm3xU
Release
LGTM
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:18 PM, drfibona...@google.com wrote:
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.**appspot.com/1520809/http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1520809/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
r10584
On Thu Aug 25 23:08:59 GMT-700 2011, cromwell...@google.comgt wrote:
lgtm
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1532803/http://www.google.com/url?sa=Dq=http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1532803/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Stephen, if you're game to do the research and the work, we're certainly
happy to have it done. Thanks either way.
On Wed Aug 24 12:39:51 GMT-700 2011, Stephen Haberman wrote:
Hm, perhaps a few. I saw instructions on patching emma; nothing else
is leaping out at me.
Okay, there are patch
How's that?
On Thu Aug 25 17:04:18 GMT-700 2011, cromwell...@google.comgt wrote:
No good. This defeats compiler optimizations big time. We don't like void
returns either, but we like big fat slow apps even less.
On Aug 22, 2011 7:50 PM, larse...@gmail.com wrote:
Reviewers: jlabanca, rjrjr,
Description:
Changes Style to return itself instead of returning void.
issue 6717
LGTM
D'oh! I thought that was meant to be *our* version string. Sorry.
On Thu Aug 18 08:55:54 GMT-700 2011, Rodrigo Chandia wrote:
According to the GWT maven plugin web page 2.3.0-1 is the latest version.
No, but I'm not sure it can be. The error is actually legitimate: you have
@UiField Label and you're trying to stick an instance of Element in it, in
this case a funny looking one: g:Label...
My alternative is to make this error fatal, which means that you could not
use binder to render prefixed
LGTM
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 7:32 AM, jlaba...@google.com wrote:
A patch is coming that modifies the TableBuilder API to make it more
flexible. TableBuilder.Utility is going away completely, and the event
handling implementation is moved from AbstractCellTable into
AbstractTableBuilder.
I like #1 too. I think we should try to narrow the visibility of
PotentialElement as much as we can.
So #1 means two things , right?
• Widgets are seated in their @UiFields immediately
• In an IsRenderable owner, Element and subclasses are only available via
LazyDomElement, and @UiField Element
, Aug 17, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Ray Ryan
rj...@google.comhttp://www.google.com/url?sa=Dq=mailto%3Arjrjr%40google.com
wrote:
I like #1 too. I think we should try to narrow the visibility of
PotentialElement as much as we can.
So #1 means two things , right?
• Widgets are seated in their @UiFields
That's a generous offer, but I don't know that anyone is going to be able to
take you up on it. We'll keep an eye out for it here. And if you do manage
to trim your failing code down to something you can share, we'll jump.
Are you building against trunk? If not, you might try and see if the
Can you share some actual code?
On Aug 9, 2011 7:37 AM, dflorey daniel.flo...@gmail.com wrote:
BTW: It works find in dev mode, just fails when compiled
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
code snippets do you need? My project is too big to share ;-)
Daniel
2011/8/9 Ray Ryan rj...@google.com
Can you share some actual code?
On Aug 9, 2011 7:37 AM, dflorey daniel.flo...@gmail.com wrote:
BTW: It works find in dev mode, just fails when compiled
--
http://groups.google.com
SGTM
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 7:15 PM, jlaba...@google.com wrote:
Ray and I hashed out the names a bit. I don't mind shortening
CellTableHeaderCreator to HeaderCreator. I don't think it'll cause any
conflicts down the road.
@rjrjr - any objections to the shorter name?
LGTM
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 4:42 PM, jlaba...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: rjrjr,
Description:
Fixing a bug in HasDataPresenter where paging to a negative row index
causes an IndexOutOfRange exception. We now properly trim the keyboard
selected row to a non-negative value.
Issue: 6383
this was, in our
CellTable subclass, have a map from Column to String to store these
database
column names. I can update to that and revert this if you like.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Ray Ryan mailto:rj...@google.com
wrote:
I was biting my tongue on this one, but I guess I'll jump
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/ will be read only in five minutes or
so.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
We will be putting the Rietveld server at
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/ into read-only mode for a few hours
at about 5pm Eastern Time tomorrow
In the last couple of hours we migrated
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/to a High
Replication
Datastorehttp://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/01/announcing-high-replication-datastore.html.
This should be transparent to you, except for much reduced latency.[1]
Huge thanks to Fred Sauer, who
We will be putting the Rietveld server at
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/ into read-only mode for a few hours at
about 5pm Eastern Time tomorrow, Thursday August 4th, to deal with some
maintenance.
rjrjr
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
I'm still not crazy about having addClientData() and getClientData() on
separate objects. It seems to me that you've violated your own principal
that the GeneratorContext should be the only object that has to get passed
to the generator's helpers.
Can addClientData() move to the context? That
Oh, and putClientData seems like a better name.
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
I'm still not crazy about having addClientData() and getClientData() on
separate objects. It seems to me that you've violated your own principal
that the GeneratorContext should
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:36 PM, jbrosenb...@google.com wrote:
On 2011/08/03 20:03:28, rjrjr wrote:
Oh, and putClientData seems like a better name.
Done
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Ray Ryan mailto:rj...@google.com
wrote:
I'm still not crazy about having addClientData
LGTM
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 4:17 PM, jbrosenb...@google.com wrote:
Well, a generator has to keep it's own state anyway, in practice. In
the case of AbstractClientBundleGenerator, it actually creates a
ResourceContext and passes that around, along with the GeneratorContext
(this was before
Lets warn gwt-announce that the default will change next Tuesday, and
encourage them to try it out themselves in the meantime. Are you okay
driving that, and with waiting another week?
On Aug 2, 2011 6:33 AM, her...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: rjrjr,
Description:
Making lazy widgets
I was biting my tongue on this one, but I guess I'll jump in and agree, this
smells bad.
@jlabanca, is there no hook in Column or maybe Cell.Context where this kind
of app-specific data can be added?
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Jeff Larsen larse...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm inclined to agree
can update to that and revert this if you like.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
I was biting my tongue on this one, but I guess I'll jump in and agree,
this smells bad.
@jlabanca, is there no hook in Column or maybe Cell.Context where this
kind of app
Unnur, would you be comfortable taking this?
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:12 PM, b...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: rjrjr,
Message:
This is a re-spin of a patch that was written back in October but that
got dropped. The original patch is at
I've shared a publicly visible copy here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oo_imxskoGX5O9l9LhHDtJ0yJkHvNTNQqU3dkkekZYI/edit?hl=en_US
Does that work for you?
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 3:22 PM, stephen.haber...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it okay to make that public?
I think it is OK. We usually
LGTM
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:09 AM, rchan...@google.com wrote:
On 2011/06/14 16:54:43, rdcastro wrote:
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.**appspot.com/1455804/http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1455804/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Ready for review.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:03 PM, rj...@google.com {subItem.from.uri}
wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1446819/http://www.google.com/url?sa=Dq=http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1446819/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
As soon as we have done that, we can't make changes to UiBinderWriter and
all the other classes the parsers actually talk to, nor can we make sweeping
changes to the code they generate.
If the problem is retrofitting widgets you don't own, would a non-annotation
alternative to UiChild get the job
:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
As soon as we have done that, we can't make changes to UiBinderWriter and
all the other classes the parsers actually talk to, nor can we make
sweeping
changes to the code they generate.
If the problem is retrofitting widgets you
LGTM
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:29 AM, jul...@google.com wrote:
Uploaded patch with assertion in DOM.insertListItem as patch set 3.
http://gwt-code-reviews.**appspot.com/1454810/diff/3001/**
In general we try to be null-intolerant, although I don't know how
consistent we are about it. Basically, nulls should never be quietly cleaned
up for you but rather should fail fast if practical. If null is a legal
value, it should serve a specific purpose.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:44 AM,
That is an excellent question.
I don't think anyone has yet tried to go that route in earnest, and I
suspect the first to do so will find that IsWidget is not yet as first class
as it should be, just due to undiscovered corner cases and such. But it sure
would be interesting to try to make it
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:16 AM, jlaba...@google.com wrote:
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1450810/diff/6002/user/src/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/PotentialElement.java
File user/src/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/PotentialElement.java
(right):
LGTM
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 1:39 PM, jbrosenb...@google.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1450806/diff/3002/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/GeneratorContext.java
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/GeneratorContext.java (right):
LGTM
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 7:38 AM, b...@google.com wrote:
The base interface for RequestFactory service endpoints.
Add disclaimer explaining that this interface (and the others) are
normally
implemented by generated code, and are subject to incompatible
updates?
Done. Also added a
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Thomas Broyer t.bro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 5:46:34 PM UTC+2, Jeff Larsen wrote:
On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 10:21:18 AM UTC-5, Thomas Broyer wrote:
On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 3:29:35 PM UTC+2, Jeff Larsen wrote:
Wow, this is
LGTM
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:53 AM, sbruba...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: rjrjr,
Description:
Fix escaping issue with SafeHtml in Safari3
Review by: rj...@google.com
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1443806/
Affected files:
M
LGTM
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 5:04 AM, gaill...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: rjrjr,
Description:
Add the method name to the message of InvocationService to make it
easier to
find out the rootcause of the exception.
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1450803/
The blog post would be great. We'll plunder from it freely for our own
samples and docs.
One note: lately we've been using Objectify rather than JDO for appengine
apps. It's pretty pleasant.
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Etienne P. etienne...@gmail.com wrote:
I've gone through the same
r10214
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 6:04 AM, jlaba...@google.com wrote:
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1450802/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Rather than detaching, could you render the new contents in a hidden div and
then replace the tbody?
IE is a little tricky about doing this kind of thing with table elements,
but HTMLPanel.HTMLPanel(String, String) shows the workaround for that (just
render inside a div and all is forgiven).
On
You're working too hard in IE. You don't need to create the entire table,
you can create fragments so long as you're doing it inside a div
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:21 PM, jlaba...@google.com wrote:
committed as r10218 before I read Ray's comment.
On 2011/05/24 20:06:24, rjrjr wrote:
We're trying to make bindery the correct location, but we're a bit in
mid-step.
But you shouldn't have to have two instances. gwt...EventBus extends
binder...EventBus.
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 10:29 AM, dd cafeb...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hey g-men,
with GWT 2.3 the autobean, event and
Meh, that's a lot of work for not a lot of gain.
Why don't we just move it to user.client.ui, right next to
AbstractImagePrototype? I don't see why we'd make it a nested class.
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
I was wondering if we should move the code from
LGTM
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 12:09 PM, jlaba...@google.com wrote:
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1422816/diff/8001/user/src/com/google/gwt/user/client/DocumentModeAsserter.java
File user/src/com/google/gwt/user/client/DocumentModeAsserter.java
(right):
Looks good to me.
Do you still need the patch that brings back GwtEvent.setSource, or is this
enough by itself?
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 3:58 PM, stephen.haber...@gmail.com wrote:
Reviewers: rjrjr,
Description:
Adds two protected static methods to EventBus that expose otherwise
inaccessible
I was wondering if we should move the code from abstract image prototype
here, make it depend on the renderer. Deferred binding and all. What do you
think?
On May 19, 2011 9:41 PM, jlaba...@google.com wrote:
Yes please, we shouldn't have broken existing code like that.
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Stephen Haberman
stephen.haber...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
With the bindery package change, I have a custom EventBus implementation
that no longer compiles. I was calling GwtEvent.setSource (and
Sneaky. You asked for package protected. I don't want to *expand* the public
foot print.
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 3:34 PM, stephen.haber...@gmail.com wrote:
Reviewers: rjrjr,
Description:
Redefines Event.setSource in the GwtEvent subclass to restore
c.g.g.e.shared package visibility.
Bob V is the authority here, but he's on vacation this week.
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 7:08 AM, Patrick Julien pjul...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is what I am planning to do to fix issue 6068
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=6068
1. Add to BeanMethod.java (package
Verbal LGTM from John.
r10167
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:40 PM, rj...@google.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1444801/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Filing a bug would be helpful, thanks.
If you want to offer a fix the details are at
http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/makinggwtbetter.html
On May 6, 2011 12:50 AM, Laurent Le Goff legoff.laur...@gmail.com wrote:
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:52 AM, rchan...@google.com wrote:
On 2011/05/05 22:15:56, rjrjr wrote:
Rietveld is choking on this.
Yes, something is broken in my git5 client that plays badly with
reitveld.
The non-eclipse instructions in the README.txt are wrong, aren't they?
ant war can't
LGTM, by the way.
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Rodrigo Chandia rchan...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
But the distributed app does get the necessary jars in war/WEB-INF/lib
and produce a proper war.
Cool. How?
'samples/build.xml
LGTM
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 12:13 PM, rchan...@google.com wrote:
OK, I promise I'll try to fix my rietveld reviews. Please use the
Unified diff view for the time being.
On 2011/05/06 19:01:27, rchandia wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1438802/
--
Rietveld is choking on this.
The non-eclipse instructions in the README.txt are wrong, aren't they? ant
war can't work because
of the missing appengine jars. Shouldn't we be saying that the sample
is configured to assume you're using GPE?
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:59 PM, rchan...@google.com
Rodrigo, it looks like John is on vacation for the rest of the week. Can you
finish this review?
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:24 PM, rj...@google.com wrote:
Ready for another look.
OrientationMonitor is replaced with OrientationHelper. John, I think
I've stumbled onto a pretty nice widget plugin
This is probably html unit honoring the locale and changing its behavior
from what the tests expect.
On May 4, 2011 2:02 AM, t.bro...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2011/05/03 17:51:18, rjrjr wrote:
Running ant clean dist-dev test, this appears to break the i18n suite
under
html unit.
Oops! Only tested
Please tell me that this is the last step in the following chain. It seems
unlikely if you're only providing the property now.
First you provide the property to allow quirks, and give compiler warnings
that only go away if you set standards mode or set the quirks property. (And
publicize that it
I mean that you should have been able to fix it by replace place1 == place2
with place1.equals(place2).
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:39 AM, jlaba...@google.com wrote:
@rjrjr -
What do you mean?
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1428810/
--
in place yet that we could implement
app specific client side caching in a sample like this?
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
I mean that you should have been able to fix it by replace place1 == place2
with place1.equals(place2).
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:39 AM
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Bob Vawter robertvaw...@google.com wrote:
Bob, I've lost track -- are there hooks in place yet that we could
implement
app specific client side caching in a sample like this?
You can call RequestFactory.getSerializer() with an implementation of
a ProxyStore
I'd be inclined to start with a) and see what happens.
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:02 AM, rdcas...@google.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1427812/diff/1/user/src/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/AttachableHTMLPanel.java
File
at 12:58 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Bob Vawter robertvaw...@google.comwrote:
Bob, I've lost track -- are there hooks in place yet that we could
implement
app specific client side caching in a sample like this?
You can call RequestFactory.getSerializer
Once we've validated the work, seems like a lot of the Attachable support
should be baked into UiObject, Widget and Panel in some kind of opt-in
manner.
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Rafael Castro rdcas...@google.com wrote:
Liked it. With the stuff I added to our subclass of
I guess I'm speaking strictly of the null checks. It's fine for our sample
code not to have a real auth system in its storage, of course.
Seems like your UserServiceWrapper should have a requireCurrentUserId()
method that throws an exception if there is no id, and Task shouldn't be
friendly. Is
LGTM
Thanks, will submit.
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:40 AM, t.bro...@gmail.com wrote:
Reviewers: rjrjr, bobv,
Description:
Force locale to en_US for user unit tests
Force locale to en_US for user unit tests, otherwise validation tests
fail (use hard-coded checks on locale-dependent
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:49 AM, her...@google.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1427809/diff/1/user/src/com/google/gwt/uibinder/client/LazyDomElement.java
File user/src/com/google/gwt/uibinder/client/LazyDomElement.java
(right):
LGTM
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:49 AM, her...@google.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1427809/diff/1/user/src/com/google/gwt/uibinder/client/LazyDomElement.java
File user/src/com/google/gwt/uibinder/client
, 2010 actual=It is 2010 Feb 15
junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: Remote test failed at 172.31.131.172 /
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.19)
Gecko/2010031422 Firefox/3.0.19
expected=It is Feb 15, 2010 actual=It is 2010 Feb 15
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Ray Ryan rj
LGTM
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:06 PM, rdcas...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: rjrjr,
Description:
Fix Attachable for those poor fellows who don't have the bliss of
SafeHtml enabled (yet).
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1426808/
Affected files:
M
This still appears to have all the problems of
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1426803.
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 11:33 AM, rchan...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: rjrjr,
Description:
SafeHtmlRenderer code gen for UiBinder.
Picking-up patch from rietveld issue 1426803
Please review this
1 - 100 of 718 matches
Mail list logo
