I'm going to add useragent.UserAgent and update a new patch. /kel On 2008/12/03 12:50:52, knorton wrote: > Thanks for looking at this Thomas, > Maybe UserAgent should just go into a path that has no client source associated > with it. That would provide fine grain inheritance. But before we do do that, > would it be reasonable in your uses to just inherit dom.Dom? > > For all my uses this seemed reasonable. This still means that UserAgent is not > independently inheritable, but that is a big issue that we have all over the > place. We've done an extremely poor job of separating those modules that are > setup to be inherited and those that just group some deferred binding rules. In > fact, most of the modules in User cannot be inherited by themselves. > > To be honest, I wish we would start creating larger .gwt.xml files and make each > one that exists inheritable. Doing that would mean that I would get rid of > UserAgent.gwt.xml altogether and move its contents into dom.DOM.gwt.xml. (or > either create useragent.UserAgent.gwt.xml) > > So, I'm not opposed to making useragent.UserAgent. But I would like to try to > just make UserAgent be a part of DOM if that is at all feasible.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/401 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
