Meh. I've always thought our selections scripts were too big and complicated as is. I'd rather we could figure out a way to get rid of meta properties altogether. :(
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Lex Spoon <sp...@google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:35 PM, John Tamplin <j...@google.com> wrote: > >> So, the following would mean the per-module instance is never used, right? >> >> <meta name="gwt:property" value="org.example.Foo::bar=..."/> >> <meta name="gwt:property" value="bar=..."/> >> >> I suppose that could work, but it makes more sense to me to say that the >> module-specific one is used in that module regardless of the ordering. >> > > It would be nice. However, this is code that will be downloaded to the > browser, so it seems we should make sure it's paying its weight. > > In this case, the desired effect can be achieved by rearranging the meta > tags. Given that, last-one-wins seems like a simple rule that would support > all the use cases. > > > >> >> Looking at that code, I just realized that my example was wrong. It would >>> actually be like this: >>> >>> <meta >>> name="gwt.property" >>> value="com.google.gwt.sample.mail.Mail::baseUrl= >>> http://static-content.service.com/mail";> >>> >> >> Ok, so only the value of gwt.property values would be scoped, no other GWT >> metas? For example, you would not be able to have separate onLoadErrorFn's >> per module? >> > > Good point. I simply hadn't thought about anything but gwt.property. > > If the module goes with the name attribute, then it would apply to all GWT > meta tags, not just the meta property ones. It would look like this: > > > <meta > name="com.google.gwt.sample.mail.Mail::gwt.property" > value="baseUrl=http://static-content.service.com/mail";> > > > What do people think about this version? > > Lex > > -- > http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
