http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/646803/diff/1/15 File user/src/com/google/gwt/dom/client/WebSocket.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/646803/diff/1/15#newcode48 user/src/com/google/gwt/dom/client/WebSocket.java:48: }; Just forget my last comment :) I misinterpreted the code here when first looking at it... http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/646803/diff/1/20 File user/test/com/google/gwt/dom/client/WebSocketTest.java (right): http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/646803/diff/1/20#newcode174 user/test/com/google/gwt/dom/client/WebSocketTest.java:174: private static MockRawWebSocket mockRawSocket; What about adding a protected constructor into WebSocket which would accept an additional parameter which would be the mockRawWebSocket @SuppressWarnings("unused") protected WebSocket(String url, String subProtocol, RawWebSocket socket) { rawWebSocket = socket; } and here in test you would have: private static class MockWebSocket extends WebSocket { public MockWebSocket(String url, String subProtocol, MockRawWebSocket mockRawSocket) { super(url, subProtocol, mockRawSocket); } public static MockWebSocket create(MockRawWebSocket mockRawSocket) { return new MockWebSocket(mockRawSocket.getURL(), null, mockRawSocket); } } I think that hack would be gone - though haven't tried this yet. http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/646803/show -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
