On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Andrés Testi <andres.a.te...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Please, don't adopt Lombok. While it is an interesting project, it is > still a hack. We should wait for java8 compiler plugins, because they are > an official feature and have a lot more probabilities than lombok to be > forward compatible and standardized. Ironically, Reinier Zwitserloot, one > of the authors of Lombok, disagreed with me when I proposed Annotation > Proccessors as replacement for generators, 7 years ago: > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-web-toolkit-contributors/2uBiRzMJLgM/v0tX_DXEv6oJ > > My original intention with this post, was to deprecate a redundant feature > like SourceWriter. While the suggested way to go would be APT (I'm not > really convinced about it), GWT.create() will stay here for years. I can't > see incompatibility between adoption of APT and deprecation of > SourceWriter. Promoting the use of tools like JavaWriter instead of > GWT-only features, is a good sign for developers to go for other options. > Less code to mantain is better. > Deprecating SourceWriter and replacing it with JavaWriter means encouraging our users (and our own code-base) to move out of SourceWriter to JavaWriter. If we decide APT is the way to go then if someone is going to write generator, it should be APT - in that case internally we may use JavaWriter and externally they could use whatever they want (including the JavaWriter). However, If the generator is already written, then it is a meaningless effort to move out of SourceWriter. All of these together there is very little value compared to the cost of such move (including the annoyance caused by it). > A quick example: > Generator.escape() doesn't escapes UTF-8 control characters. To fix it, I > must write a patch, pray for its approbation, and wait for the next GWT > release. Or I can just use JavaWriter.stringLiteral() . > > - Andrés Testi > > El jueves, 27 de febrero de 2014 22:02:14 UTC-3, Ray Cromwell escribió: >> >> I think if we move to APT, you can do AST based code-gen via something >> like a JavaWriter to a stream, or if we adopt lombok, then you construct >> code by directly manipulating the trees of JavaC and JDT. >> >> >> >> >> On Thu Feb 27 2014 at 4:17:15 PM, James Nelson <ja...@wetheinter.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Is there anywhere to get a sneak preview on the discussions about the >>> future of codegen? >>> >>> Andres and I have both invested time in some extensions of ast-based >>> codegen, and could really use some time and forewarning to adapt our >>> strategy to stay future-friendly with out apis. >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >> -- > 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. > -- 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.
