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;
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; WeakMapping is also directly referenced through
server code, namely in ProxyAutoBean)
--
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
Note that this is strictly a refactoring of code that is already JRE
compatible.
Cool--for context then, are the non-GWT use cases:
A) Java clients that aren't JavaScript (Swing/etc.)
B) Javascript clients that aren't Java (pure JS)
C) Something else?
I originally assumed the reuse
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
My reaction is that EventBus/SimpleEventBus and friends should be part of this
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
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
Reactions?
Having to change import statements sounds perfectly fine to me.
Other misc comments from the peanut gallery, though likely nothing
you guys haven't likely already figured out. Just curious.
Should c.g.requestfactory have zero GWT dependencies? I.e. this
non-GWT/pure JRE jar you
