I'd recommend filing a feature request if you're interested in something like this; that will get the right eyes on it.
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Chris Lercher <cl_for_mail...@gmx.net>wrote: > On Mar 2, 4:39 pm, Rajeev Dayal <rda...@google.com> wrote: > > While you might be able to make something work > > out here, it would definitely not be supported behavior (as we've not > > thought through this use case). > > Thanks, that's what I needed to know - I'd personally only use it, if > it were supported behavior (with rules like "always drop any non- > existent fields", or rather "make specially annotated fields optional" > etc.) Maybe really worth thinking about it... > > Chris > > -- > 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-tool...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<google-web-toolkit%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en. > > -- 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-tool...@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.
