> > I guess the compiler would have to verify that each call to runAsync uses a > unique moniker - is there anything else ?
I think that's it. Pretty easy to check, and pretty easy for a developer to reason about, too. Must the moniker class exists in your own module ? I don't think it ought to be so restricted unless anyone can think of a reason to. It would actually be a good bit harder to implement to enforce that rule. > Would you only allow leaf classes to be used as monikers, i.e. could you > use OfficeSuiteSplitPoint.class as a moniker ? This would also work, although it's still too new an idea to say whether it would be wise to use such a pattern in practice. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
