Comment by pclog...@gmail.com:
The best poker blog http://poker-blogs-see.blogspot.com
Best PokerStars blog http://pokerstars-blogs.blogspot.com
Sexy, hot girls imagehttp://china-sexy-girl-images.blogspot.com/
For more information:
Comment by spoon.re...@gmail.com:
The containsKey(), get(), and remove() methods for Map and MutableMap
should take type Object and not K (same as the Java Map interface). The
reason is that it is possible for objects of different classes to
be .equals() (e.g. all implementations of
Comment by javierfe...@gmail.com:
Any update on this?
Thanks
For more information:
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/wiki/LightweightCollections
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Comment by natewingone:
@br...@google.com: It's not just mobile apps that want every byte to
count. If you use GWT to enhance a largely static website, and the website
must be fast to load for new users, you have to make sure javascript is as
small as possible. For comparison the current
Comment by br...@google.com:
@mmoossen: As the name hints, there are significantly different design
goals for these collections than for the Guava collections. These
collections are meant to be the guilt-free primitives: the lightest
conceivable way to implement basic collections on top of
Comment by mmoossen:
would not it be better to enhance Google Collections
(http://code.google.com/p/google-collections/) instead of re-inventing the
wheel once again?
i mean, i follow the contrib group, and i have seen many discussions about
implementation problems (or decisions) that
Comment by rj...@google.com:
Given the goal of Collections must be able to be eval()-ed into existence
from JSON, I hope their JRE counterparts will be able to serialize to JSON.
For more information:
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/wiki/LightweightCollections
--
Comment by rj...@google.com:
I'm very uncomfortable with the Keep implementations locked down
assertion. So long as its very clear which implementations have been vetted
by the GWT team, why should we prevent clients from providing their own
when they judge it to be worth the performance
Comment by rj...@google.com:
Has any thought been given to bridging from the JRE collection world to the
GWT collection world, and back again? Server side this will be crucial, and
if we don't address all of our users will be forced to. Perhaps we would
only provide JRE implementations of
Comment by rj...@google.com:
I'm with John T about the freeze() method: encouraging people to
retroactively lock down an existing array instance seems like a bad idea.
Like he says, the smart ones will make defensive copies anyway, so why
don't we simply do the same and make the mistakes
Comment by tsta...@google.com:
What about bounds checking? I know that GWT goes to great lengths to
emulate array bounds checking with java arrays. I assume that this would
go away with these collections.
For more information:
Comment by andre.ruediger:
vararg convenience factory methods would be handy.
--- MutableArrayString ma = makeSnackArray();
--- ImmutableArrayString ia = ma.freeze();
+++ ImmutableArrayString ia =
createImmutableArray(apple, banana, coconut, donut);
For more information:
Comment by andre.ruediger:
vararg convenience factory methods would be handy.
so
{{{MutableArray?String ma = makeSnackArray();
ImmutableArray?String ia = ma.freeze();}}}
could become
{{{ImmutableArray?String ia =
createImmutableArray(apple, banana, coconut, donut);}}}
For more
Comment by andre.ruediger:
vararg convenience factory methods would be handy.
so
{{{MutableArrayString ma = makeSnackArray();
ImmutableArrayString ia = ma.freeze();}}}
could become
{{{ImmutableArrayString ia =
createImmutableArray(apple, banana, coconut, donut);}}}
For more
Comment by andre.ruediger:
vararg convenience factory methods would be handy.
so
{{{
MutableArrayString ma = makeSnackArray();
ImmutableArrayString ia = ma.freeze();
}}}
could become
{{{
ImmutableArrayString ia =
createImmutableArray(apple, banana, coconut, donut);
}}}
For more
Comment by spoon.reloaded:
The declaration for printEach() should be simplified to:
`public void printEach(Array? arrToPrint) {`
For more information:
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/wiki/LightweightCollections
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
16 matches
Mail list logo
