Ray, it's pretty clear that we're going to land with the ability to instantiate and dispatch events in pure Java in tact, but Emily and I will need to document just why and how it's necessary, and beef up testing around the two paths. Offline I've already promised Kelly a couple of write ups on GWT and unit testing, mocking, DI... rjrjr
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Ray Cromwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Emily, > The issue of sharing the event handlers in non-GWT code is a > virtual showstopper for me. One of the initial reasons I was drawn to > GWT was the ability to share code between client and server, and now > I've taken that to Flash and Android as well. Two things: > > 1) I run both GWT unit tests and regular unit tests. Smoke tests and > shared functionality or non-JSNI code is typically JUnit tested. There > are a couple of reasons for this, such as inability to run GWT tests > under Maven, JUnit tests running much faster and not requiring > XWindows to be running on our build box, differences between hosted > mode on Linux/Windows/IE that make it hard to test logic without > swapping implementations using deferred binding. Our build process > allows us to do fast JUnit tests while developing, and then the > continuous integration server launches GWT tests on 3 separate > machines in the background. > > 2) The core logic of my GWT code is shared in my Android version, as > well as my Servlet/Applet version. The current design allows me to > create something like a 'zoom event' and map it to different > dispatchers on Android, Browser, or Servlet (e.g. the servlet can fall > back to non-Javascript old-style MapQuest-like interface) > > If you are going to remove the HashMap version in favor of a pure JS > registry, might I suggest using a module property to do this so that I > can override it and get back the original HashMap implementation? > Otherwise, I'd be forced to fork or override GWT which would be a huge > PITA, and could add to code bloat for me if I am forced to duplicate > functionality. > > Overall, I don't see any reason for not using HashMap except > performance, and while I could see a speedup in the event dispatching, > and better memory efficiency, I'm not sure event dispatching is a > hot-spot in current application code. > > -Ray > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 7:45 AM, Emily Crutcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks a million for an awesome review! There are a few points that need > > discussion, I've logged them > > under > http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/branch?spec=issue3083&branch=/branches/1_6_clean_eventsreviews. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
