+1 Ian! Great point. Not sure why we didn't think of that before.
On Monday, June 22, 2009, Ian Petersen <ispet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Lex Spoon<sp...@google.com> wrote:
>> The options I see are:
>> 1. Annotate the surrounding method with something like @RunAsyncName("Foo")
>> 2. Use the fully-qualified method name surrounding the call.
>> 3. Use the fully-qualified type name of the callback object.
>> 4. Use a new parameter to runAsync indicating the name.
>
> One possible refinement to option 1, since it seems likely to "win":
> put the annotation on the onSuccess rather than on the method that
> contains the runAsync invocation.
>
> Here's what I mean:
>
> // ... surrounding code ...
> GWT.runAsync(new AsyncCallback() {
>
> public void onFailure(Throwable caught) {
> // deal with failure
> }
>
> @SplitPointName("I like Bruce's idea")
> public void onSuccess() {
> // deal with success
> }
> });
> // ... surrounding code ...
>
> I'm not sure if it's better or worse, but it seems more flexible than
> requiring a surrounding method.
>
> To be a little bit forgiving to the developer, you could make it a
> compile-time warning if onFailure is annotated and an error if both
> onFailure and onSuccess are annotated with different names--it makes
> the generator code more complex but lets the user be a little bit
> forgetful. Not sure if that's really necessary, though.
>
> Ian
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
