How about @WithProperties or @WithModuleProperty? Since the module XML files use <define-property>, <set-property>, <property-provider>, and <when-property-is>. On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 11:01 AM, John LaBanca <jlaba...@google.com> wrote:
> @WithClientProperties is fine with me. I thought we used the term binding > somewhere, but creating a DeferredBinding doesn't actual require the use of > the term binding. The gwt.xml files just refer to these as properties. > > Thanks, > John LaBanca > jlaba...@google.com > > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Bruce Johnson <br...@google.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:51 PM, John LaBanca <jlaba...@google.com>wrote: >> >>> I vote for @WithBindingProperties for the annotation name. >> >> >> Is that a vote that we should start using the term "binding properties" in >> general? >> >> I think that's not quite the right term (perhaps this should be a separate >> thread) because increasingly, those properties will affect things like >> compiler optimization behavior, code splitting, etc. That is, they don't >> only affect how GWT.create() calls get bound. >> >> How about the term "client property"? It is a property that affects what >> the client receives and is in every case somehow a function of the client >> that is requesting the script. >> >> -- Bruce >> >> >> >> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
