Hi John, Thanks for the great responses.
> do you still have to retranslate the *entire* AST to Javascript source (and is > the resulting process still fast if you have to do so)? Yeah, good question...seems like in an ideal world you could cache the JS string for each compilation unit and then stream them to the target .js file on disk. I know that's not at all how GWT works today. > The approach i'm working on is to make change normal compiles to be > incremental at the "per module" level. This should transparently > speed up not just build systems, but also SuperDev mode. That is a good point. > In a nutshell my approach (leaving out lots and lots of edge cases) is > this: run the GWT compiler on "Module A" with *just* the Java source > for "Module A" and the bytecode for its dependencies provided to the > JDT compiler. [snip] That sounds similar to what I was thinking (although much more flushed out instead of random arm chair musing), except done on the module level instead of the compilation unit level. I get what you're saying, that if done with modules, you could output "gwtar v2" files :-), and speed both dev/prod mode up. ...well, and I'd wanted to pass in an GWT AST instead of Java source, because I think you could very quickly get a GWT (Java) AST from the Eclipse Java AST, so could skip the JDT step of the compilation process. Sounds pretty awesome. - Stephen -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Contributors" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
