FYI, I've uploaded another patch to http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/71801 with the rename. Thanks for the feedback!
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Bruce Johnson <br...@google.com> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
