2012/5/21 Thomas Broyer <t.bro...@gmail.com> > > > On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 4:47:47 PM UTC+2, Thomas Broyer wrote: >> >> Yes, please file a bug for that. >> >> If you can contribute the patch to gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com it'd be >> even better (see https://developers.**google.com/web-toolkit/** >> makinggwtbetter#**contributingcode<https://developers.google.com/web-toolkit/makinggwtbetter#contributingcode> >> ) >> As far as the patch goes, your processing loses the >> "most-to-least-derived type" ordering of the domainToClientType values that >> Deobfuscator#getClientProxies mandates. >> See http://code.google.com/p/**google-web-toolkit/source/** >> browse/trunk/user/src/com/**google/web/bindery/**requestfactory/apt/** >> TypeComparator.java<http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/browse/trunk/user/src/com/google/web/bindery/requestfactory/apt/TypeComparator.java> >> for >> the ordering, to be ported to Class<?> (see http://code.google.com/p/** >> google-web-toolkit/source/**browse/trunk/user/src/com/** >> google/gwt/place/rebind/**MostToLeastDerivedPlaceTypeCom**parator.java<http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/browse/trunk/user/src/com/google/gwt/place/rebind/MostToLeastDerivedPlaceTypeComparator.java>for >> an almost-equivalent) >> > > Thinking about it now, it looks like some simple Set processing could > work, without the need to resolve Class<?>s and compare them, because the > lists in both deobfuscators are already "complete" wrt inheritance > hierarchy: using A and B ordered sets as input, the resulting list C = > (A-B) + (B-A) + intersection(A,B), or more simply: C = (A-B) + B. > The idea is that everything that's not already in the list wouldn't change > the result; this assumes however that the deobfuscators have been created > from the same interface hierarchies (e.g. if in one case the list were > C,B,A, where C extends B, and B extends A; and in the other case the list > were C,A, with C extends A, then constructing a "merged list" B,C,A would > be wrong; that's really an edge-case and I wouldn't bother if that failed). > > Something like: > LinkedHashSet<String> a_only = new > LinkedHashSet<String>(d.domainToClientType.get(domain)); > a_only.removeAll(existing.domainToClientType.get(domain)); > ArrayList<String> new_list = new ArrayList<String>(a_only); > new_list.addAll(existing.domainToClientType.get(domain)); > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google Web Toolkit" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-web-toolkit/-/-5wv6ELRH7kJ. > > 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. >
Your solution seems to work quick and well in 99% of the cases. However, thanks to com.google.web.bindery.requestfactory.server.ServiceLayerCache, the resolution and comparasion of classes will be done only once (and only on merges). So I would prefer to cover 100% of the cases and thus skip some really hard debugging in the edge-cases. -- 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.
