Hi Collin,
Thanks for your answer, I understand now, I was only focusing on my problem
and forgot the JS to Java way. As you say, something cool would be to be
able to say to JsInterop that the interface will only be used in the Java
to JS way...
Thanks!
Le sam. 27 août 2016 16:13, Colin Alworth <niloc...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Part of the problem would come from figuring out how to call from JS back
> into Java - if you called resolve(null), was null a T or was null a
> Promise? And from JS, how could you typecheck to figure out whether to call
> the resolve_1(value) or resolve_2(promise)?
>
> Its also possible in JS to call with too many arguments, and if you call
> with not enough, they get a null value, so we'll have a resolve_0() in
> there too - but if the wrong number of arguments are there, which do you
> invoke?
>
> So, rather than JsInterop being a method lookup layer to translate to Java
> method call semantics, JsInterop uses JS semantics and lets you use them
> from Java. Just as you would write your resolve method in JS, you should
> write it in Java - take the object, and based on the value, decide what to
> do with it.
>
> Now I realize that this doesn't directly apply to your case, since you
> want to do it the other way around - pass an object implemented in JS into
> Java and interact with it there, but JsInterop provides functionality to
> work in both directions, and I'm not certain how you could tell JsInterop
> that you will never implement an interface in Java, or if that is
> functionality that we want. Instead, you could have a single method
> resolve(Object), and let JS sort it out, whether you call it with null, a
> value, or another promise.
>
> (Disclaimer, I'm not a JsInterop expect, but I'm trying to learn quickly.)
>
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 8:51 AM Arnaud TOURNIER <ltea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am playing with js Promises and maybe there's a problem with JsInterop
>> or i don't understand something.
>>
>> When wrapping the promises with JsInterop, i come to define the Resolver
>> interface which represents the resolving callback that is given when
>> constructing a promise. In Javascript it is a function and not an object,
>> so the interface has the @JsFunction annotation.
>>
>> Here is the Resolver interface (inspired from the TypeScript definition
>> of Promises...) :
>>
>> @JsFunction
>> @FunctionalInterface
>> public interface Resolver<T>
>> {
>> void resolve( T value );
>> }
>>
>> Since the Javascript "resolve" function can be called without parameters
>> and also with a Promise instead of a value, i would like to make those
>> versions available in the interface.
>>
>> But the @JsFunction annotation prevents from having this :
>>
>> @JsFunction
>> public interface Resolver<T>
>> {
>> void resolve();
>>
>> void resolve( T value );
>>
>> void resolve( Promise<T> value );
>> }
>>
>> That's because it allows only one method in the annotated interface.
>>
>> That is what i don't understand : AFAIK, the gwt compiler has to call the
>> same function in the same way for the three declared methods (because of
>> the semantic of the @JsFunction annotation), just changing the calling
>> parameters. So i don't understand why is there the limitation of having
>> only one method allowed in @JsFunction interfaces... If it would it would
>> give even much power to JsInterop !
>>
>> Could you please bring light to my misunderstanding ?
>>
>> Thanks !
>>
>> Arnaud
>>
>> --
>>
> 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.
>
>
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/15705e1b-c1cf-46ec-add7-96d2b787f8fe%40googlegroups.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/15705e1b-c1cf-46ec-add7-96d2b787f8fe%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "GWT Contributors" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/google-web-toolkit-contributors/pNmyrzkfPWo/unsubscribe
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/CADcXZMxQAj-TExK50id9AVKB36mWv8JnAW5f%2BK0Zg4%3D9SOi74A%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/CADcXZMxQAj-TExK50id9AVKB36mWv8JnAW5f%2BK0Zg4%3D9SOi74A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/CANjaDne6ASdinM8KOhPc5BmTK6V_mt8_1n-tQ83enju30hOtMA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
