IMHO it's a small enough addition that totally makes sense and it's nothing that would block any future direction of GWT. I don't see any real reason to not accept the contribution.
The points mentioned are either clunky (pull in a complete different library just to get a single small feature or use some workarounds), won't happen anytime soon (replacing GWT SafeHtml with safe-html-types or wrap it around) or are simply pointless (J2CL not released, no fully worked out / discussed future plan for GWT 3.0). The only valid point might be code size increase and runtime performance, but thats a valid point for every contribution and should simply be worked out until it's acceptable. IMHO contributions shouldn't be handled too picky as long as there is no concrete plan for GWT 3.0. Nowadays we have GWT 2.8 and a contributor wants to improve it, that's it, very simple. I'll probably give +1 after rethinking the code size / performance point and a maintainer for SafeHtml should give +2 once the code is fine. -- J. -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/8826b9ee-f889-4f9d-be8c-1cb13fe2576e%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
