On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Lex Spoon <sp...@google.com> wrote: > Both of them already have reviews for me (or soon will). It's not > really a code splitter change, but new code to associate names with > AST nodes (in ReplaceRunAsync). CodeSplitter then looks up the names > as recorded. I was really wondering what you'd think is good style > for this sort of thing. >
Okay, I'll go back and take another look. > > The fundamental question I have is why this is a class name instead of a > > string literal? If it's literally just an arbitrary string identifier, > > it seems misleading to attach a class to it. > > > > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/56814 > > > > I should have dug up the thread that discussed the design of this > naming scheme. Here it is: > > > http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors/browse_thread/thread/99751ee4ccd02d06/2ecbc72988b91a5b > > > It was a long discussion, and this is the scheme that came out of it. > I initially pushed for strings, myself, because they are simple and > they are enough for applications. Looking forward, though, libraries > might include runAsync calls, in which case class literals have some > advantages: > > 1. They reuse the global Java package hierarchy, so it's hard for two > libraries to use the same name by accident. > > 2. Despite being in a global hierarchy--and thus long--you can use > Java imports to shorten them back up. > > 3. They can have Javadoc attached. > > 4. They can have other annotations attached, if we ever come up with a > need to attach more information to a split point. > That makes perfect sense, I could imagine using annotations to give the compiler hints about how to split your code. Not that I would want to second-guess that design discussion anyway. I mainly just wanted to know what the reasons were. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
