On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Ray Ryan <rj...@google.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:38 AM, John LaBanca <jlaba...@google.com> wrote: > >> I don't think Andrés was asking why they weren't in the gwt package. He's >> sking why they are in the com.google.web package if they are usable outside >> of the web domain. It seems like we are moving from a very limited package >> scope to a slightly less limited package scope. >> >> I'm sure you've debated this plenty, but since I'm doing the code review, >> I have to question the package name com.google.web.bindery. >> com - okay, off to a good start >> .google - I like it >> .web - I agree with Andrés here. Wouldn't a use case be to run this code >> on the server, or even in an Android app? >> > > You're reading "web" to mean "HTML." I'm reading it as "app that talks to a > web service, regardless of what it's written in." > > >> It seems like "web" could be dropped, saving 4 bytes in a lot of files. >> > > Not an option, I tried. Creating a new sub-package of com.google is not > something we can do unilaterally. > > >> .bindery - What's bindery? It sounds like its related to UiBinder, but >> UiBinder is truly cliient one. Is it the name of the new project? >> > > From the README file that I clearly need to add: > > bindery is a minimal open source web app framework for GWT > with experimental support for JRE clients. It is based around an > app-wide event bus and and an RPC system especially useful for CRUD style > apps. > > > The consistent theme of the code in this package is that it allows > "binding" decoupled systems in a type safe way with a minimum of > boilerplate. Thus bindery. > > > And yes, it took a very long time to come up with that name. > I don't like it. No good reason, it just doesn't have a nice ring to it. You guys should start over and come up with a better name, preferably a palindrome. Maybe com.google.web.rjrjr?
> >> If you drop "web", we end up with: >> com.google.gwt - Libraries used to create GWT applications. >> com.google.bindary - Useful Google Java libraries, but google provides >> other libraries, so what is bindary's mission? >> >> Thanks, >> John LaBanca >> jlaba...@google.com >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Ray Ryan <rj...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> We want to be able to experiment with non-GWT clients of web services, >>> particularly via RequestFactory. But I have to put emphasis on the word >>> "experiment." Non-GWT won't be a supported path soon, if ever. >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Andrés Testi >>> <andres.a.te...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> Why bindery package is nested in a web package? Are these APIs not >>>> available for non web applications? >>>> Regards. >>>> >>>> - Andrés >>>> >>>> On 31 mar, 01:19, rj...@google.com wrote: >>>> > Ready for review. John, can you keep me honest on the treatment of >>>> > com.google.gwt.event.shared, and the choices made in the new event >>>> > package? >>>> > >>>> > Bob, does this fit what you have in mind for the bindery organization? >>>> > >>>> > Note that I've updated Activity and Place to use the new classes, but >>>> > not RequestFactory. I won't submit this until Dan has his big patch in >>>> > place, and I'll make the RF changes before I do. >>>> > >>>> > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1394803/ >>>> >>>> -- >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors >>> >> >> > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
