Hey, that's a nice visualization! Using a nice view like that, we can probably iterate in early 2009 to clean up a lot of this. (Spoiler alert: I'm going to start advocating hard in 2009 to get rid of module XML altogether and use package and class annotations instead.)
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Kelly Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > btw, Attached is a morbid look at the dependency graph starting from > user.User. > /kel > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:50 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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 >> > > > > -- > If you received this communication by mistake, you are entitled to one free > ice cream cone on me. Simply print out this email including all relevant > SMTP headers and present them at my desk to claim your creamy treat. We'll > have a laugh at my emailing incompetence, and play a game of ping pong. > (offer may not be valid in all States). > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
