John, when you do this it would be a good idea to add a test that toggles the bits a couple of times and sees that thing still works, so that we don't break it later. rjrjr
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Emily Crutcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This seems like a pretty persuasive use case. > > > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Ray Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> For one thing, it lets UI templates set their values without requiring >> custom parsers. Something like four different people have inspected the code >> for problems at this point and found none. >> rjrjr >> >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Emily Crutcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> +1 to >>> public boolean isAutoHideEnabled() >>> public boolean isModal() >>> >>> Why do we want to change whether auto hide/modality is enabled on an >>> existing popup panel? It seems like if we do this we would need to check >>> for edge cases that currently don't come up. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Alex Rudnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> +1, sounds like a good idea. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Jason Essington >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> > +1 here, as I've recently had to use the violator pattern to flip >>>> those >>>> > bits. >>>> > -jason >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Alex Rudnick >>>> swe, gwt, atl >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> "There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand >>> binary, and those who don't" >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > "There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand > binary, and those who don't" > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
