In the library code we constantly use *Impl to denote a class  that users
should not look at, but here we we have  *Impl annotations that is part of a
public API. Could we modify the name slightly so we can keep the *Impl
convention consistant throughout the gwt code base?


On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:17 AM, John Tamplin <j...@google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Bruce Johnson <br...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone buy that reasoning? An important related question is whether
>> these things are actually compiler flags or whether they are module
>> settings. I think they are actually more appropriate as the latter.
>>
>
> If they are module flags, what happens when you have different settings for
> different modules (as you point out, it will be impossible to keep them
> consistent in a large code base with shared code)?  If it is a compile-time
> error, then some code simply won't be shareable between projects -- maybe
> that is ok if that module's owner has decided it is important enough to set
> the flag in a library module?  If it is based on which module it is in, does
> the caller or callee win the battle, and will that behavior be surprising to
> a developer?
>
> Regarding the original question, I don't have a strong preference for
> either solution over the other.  #2 does have additional utility, but it
> seems less consistent than simply saying that after type tightening there
> must be exactly one implementation.  Given the primary use case is shared
> code between client and server which will use a JSO object in the client (at
> least until generators are able to produce a JSO subclass), I am not sure
> the additional utility is worth the hidden code size risk and slightly
> inconsistency.
>
> --
> John A. Tamplin
> Software Engineer (GWT), Google
>
>
> >
>


-- 
"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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to