I dig @WithProperties to the max. On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Pascal Muetschard <pmuetsch...@google.com>wrote:
> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
