On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Bobby wrote: > > I realize that your getConstant approach has an initialization > overhead but i'm going to overlook that so that i can get the > generated library to a point where i can test it and then come back > and revisit this. This will be more complex because the GData JS > implementation allows "namespaces" to be loaded dynamically as needed.
Given that the protocol is clearly defined and documented, I wonder if a "pure GWT" implementation wouldn't be better... Well, eventually, that could be your "v2.0" ;-) > On the return type of the JS methods that receive callbacks, most > likely these methods return void, i think that's just the way the > JSDocs display - otherwise they would have to display that as > void updateEntry(<google.gdata.Entry function(Object)> continuation, > <google.gdata.Entry function(Error)> opt_errorHandler). Er, you probably mean void updateEntry(<void function(google.gdata.Entry)> continuation, <void function(Error)> opt_errorHandler) > This type of ambiguity is why an 100% auto-generate is not going to > happen - in addition to this there are a couple of classes missing > from the JS Docs (i'll just fill those in from the GData Java docs). Well, I don't know what you're generating from, but it could be as easy as "if the method takes 2 arguments of type function, the second one taking an Error argument, then convert them to an AsyncCallback<T> where T is the method's documented return type, and make the method actually have a void return type". > I like the idea of using an intermediate class to handle the > callbacks, i think you mentioned this in your original reply and i > missed it. Hmm, not quite sure what you're talking about... > If you're interested, and since you already put some time here i can > add you as a member of this project: > http://code.google.com/p/gdata-gwt-client/ > This way you get some credit. I'd rather wait to see some code ;-) (and I have so many projects yet that I don't have time to update...) > This is a key library for GWT in my > opinion and it's missing - Google says they don't have plans to do > this right now so it's a good opportunity. Probably because they'd rather do it in GWT than as a GWT wrapper around the JS API, which is a bit more work probably... (and they'd have to have time to maintain it, etc.) Anyway, good luck ;-) -- Thomas Broyer --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to Google-Web-Toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
