yes... i understand.. it's obvious, but the property defined that cause the other compilations was in another gwt.xml file. The fact is that i need to rearange the UI for a lot of widgets in my app when using a mobile phone browser. So i figured that using GWT.create and replacing a class with one that overrides some of the drawing logic would be an elegant solution. For that, i created a property named "is.mobile" with true/false values. So i don't like the fact that i have to compile another 12 permutations, but if it is a good way of doing this, well i guess it's ok.
Btw, when i removed the replace-with tag, those other 12 permutations were no more performed. So if i have a property defined, those permutations are compiled only if that property is used somewhere ? On Aug 30, 3:25 pm, Thomas Broyer <t.bro...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 30 août, 11:54, Ice13ill <andrei.fifi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm developing an app for 2 languages and GWT performs 12 compilation > > (2*6 for each browser) > > But i also need to develop a second UI for some widgets so i decided > > to use the <replace-with> tag for replacing a class with one of it's > > children and also instantiating that class with GWT.create(). > > the problem is that now GWT performs 24 compilation (and it seems very > > awkward because the gwt library uses a lot of these replace-with/ > > create() stuff). So if i use a second replace-with tag and > > GWT.create() for another class replacement, will that generate another > > 12 compilations ? (36 total !) > > The number of permutation is dependent upon the number of deferred- > binding properties and their possible values, not the number of > <replace-with> or <generate-with> rules. > > > The question is: am i doing smth wrong ? or should i adopt another > > strategy for using multiple classes ? > > Please advice ! > > I don't understand what you mean by "a second UI for some widgets" so > I can't tell how you should do it (and whether <replace-with> and more > generally deferred-binding is appropriate for your case). > What's clear is that you seem to have added a new deferred-binding > property (<define-property>) with two possible values (to be > determined at runtime by a property-provider or explicitly using a > <meta name=gwt:property>), and you should question yourself whether > this is needed. -- 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.