Hi guys, The AjaxLoader API will be put in public release soon. I've made a release branch for it under subversion at http://gwt-google-apis.googlecode.com/svn/releases/ajaxloader/1.0
-Eric. On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Bobby <bobbysoa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm going over the following pages carefully: > > http://code.google.com/docreader/#p=gwt-google-apis&s=gwt-google-apis&t=Overview > > Some GWT APIs, such as the Maps API, already have an implementation of > the AjaxLoader for loading Google JS libraries, so that's one less > thing to do. > > Bobby > > On Apr 27, 2:58 am, Bobby <bobbysoa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I just came across some interesting docs, this one in particular > > covers almost all the questions i had in my original post (lots of > > TBDs though): > http://code.google.com/docreader/#p=gwt-google-apis&s=gwt-google-apis... > > > > Also, check out what's underneath the "large efforts" heading in the > > wishlist page: > http://code.google.com/docreader/#p=gwt-google-apis&s=gwt-google-apis... > > > > That's right, and here i am going it alone, you ought to be > > ashamed. :) > > > > Bobby > > > > On Apr 27, 2:21 am, Bobby <bobbysoa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I would prefer having a GWT library for GData, it seems within reach. > > > > > Bobby > > > > > On Apr 26, 11:55 pm, Vitali Lovich <vlov...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Couldn't arbitrary JS support be added using deferred binding? Sure, > you > > > > wouldn't be able to do code completion, but you could call arbitrary > JS > > > > functions & variables with 0-overhead. Might be a cool project to do > (if > > > > Ray hasn't already done it :D). > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Bobby <bobbysoa...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > I finally got the GData library to compile inside a GWT 1.6 test > app. > > > > > Now it's down to testing. > > > > > > > I'm considering auto generating a test app as well, otherwise i > won't > > > > > be able to find out what's broken, otherwise i have to test each > class > > > > > manually. > > > > > > > It looks good at this point but i'm antecipating plenty of > headaches > > > > > in testing. > > > > > > > Bobby > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 6:51 pm, Bobby <bobbysoa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > The GData JS API is doing some fancy stuff to be able to POST > data > > > > > > across domains, etc, it's also fairly large (in number of > classes) and > > > > > > it's missing some large GData components (for Google Docs and > > > > > > Spreadsheets). All of this i'm guessing is why Google doesn't > have a > > > > > > GWT library out for GData yet. I wouldn't want to code this > manually > > > > > > but i if i can automate it then it's ok. > > > > > > > > > I'd rather wait to see some code ;-) > > > > > > > (and I have so many projects yet that I don't have time to > update...) > > > > > > > > Oh right, no chance, it's now or never (or whenever you feel like > up > > > > > > to it, just let me know). > > > > > > > > I'm counting on being able to auto-generate a decent wrapper > without > > > > > > much difficulty, if this becomes complex or beyond my means i'll > just > > > > > > let Google worry about it. This is why i want to test a rough > version > > > > > > of the wrapper ASAP. > > > > > > > > Anyway thanks for all the pointers, i'll post more questions here > as > > > > > > they come up. > > > > > > > > Bobby > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 6:04 pm, Thomas Broyer <t.bro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- Eric Z. Ayers - GWT Team - Atlanta, GA USA http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
