LGTM
https://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1830803/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
On 2012/09/14 00:27:24, skybrian wrote:
On 2012/09/13 20:22:43, tbroyer wrote:
> I kind of like the enums as in com.google.gwt.dom.client.Style (also
used in
> SafeStyles), but I'll make the setResponseType(String) public, and
add a
> getResponseTypeString() to the enum.
Oops, I guess I
On 2012/09/13 20:22:43, tbroyer wrote:
I kind of like the enums as in com.google.gwt.dom.client.Style (also
used in
SafeStyles), but I'll make the setResponseType(String) public, and add
a
getResponseTypeString() to the enum.
Oops, I guess I should have responded. I'm fine with it either w
On 2012/09/13 18:23:04, skybrian wrote:
I don't see any usages of XmlHttpRequest.ResponseType in Google code.
OK, so I'll remove the create(ResponseType).
We could have constants instead of the enum.
I kind of like the enums as in com.google.gwt.dom.client.Style (also
used in SafeStyles), b
I don't see any usages of XmlHttpRequest.ResponseType in Google code. We
could have constants instead of the enum.
https://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1830803/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Should we kill off the ResponseType enum and just take a String? It's
simpler, and this is low-level, after all.
- Brian
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:08 AM, wrote:
>
> https://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1830803/diff/2003/user/src/com/google/gwt/xhr/client/XMLHttpRequest.java
> File user/src/com
https://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1830803/diff/2003/user/src/com/google/gwt/xhr/client/XMLHttpRequest.java
File user/src/com/google/gwt/xhr/client/XMLHttpRequest.java (right):
https://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1830803/diff/2003/user/src/com/google/gwt/xhr/client/XMLHttpRequest.java#newcode
https://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1830803/diff/2003/user/src/com/google/gwt/xhr/client/XMLHttpRequest.java
File user/src/com/google/gwt/xhr/client/XMLHttpRequest.java (right):
https://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1830803/diff/2003/user/src/com/google/gwt/xhr/client/XMLHttpRequest.java#newcode
On 2012/09/13 17:16:52, skybrian wrote:
Since this API is essentially just a wrapper around the JavaScript
object and
there's no place to stash the desired response type, adding the setter
and
deprecating create() with a response type seems like the way to go.
Done.
I wonder if we shouldn
I'm not all that familiar with XMLHttpRequest, but every JavaScript
example I can find sets the response type between open() and send(). I
don't understand John's concern about a race condition since it seems
like the request won't be sent until send() is called? I think we should
follow common pr
On 2012/09/12 21:02:42, jtamplin wrote:
On 2012/09/12 20:47:20, skybrian wrote:
> Hmm, I'm inclined to skip this patch for GWT 2.5. The typo fix at
least makes
it
> work on some browsers...
If I understand Thomas' test results, the getter works properly
everywhere -- it
is the existing set
On 2012/09/12 20:47:20, skybrian wrote:
Hmm, I'm inclined to skip this patch for GWT 2.5. The typo fix at
least makes it
work on some browsers...
If I understand Thomas' test results, the getter works properly
everywhere -- it is the existing setter which fails on FF11+. So, this
patch doesn
Hmm, I'm inclined to skip this patch for GWT 2.5. The typo fix at least
makes it work on some browsers...
https://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1830803/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
On 2012/09/12 16:03:13, tbroyer wrote:
I'll try on IE7, IE8 and IE9 next (currently downloading the VMs from
the MSDN).
Results from https://browserlab.adobe.com
IE7, IE8 and IE9: works as an expando (no error; prints undefined,
arraybuffer, dummy)
Chrome 18 / Windows: throws on setting to "du
On 2012/09/12 14:32:37, jtamplin wrote:
Did you test it? It probably needs testing on IE6 if GWT still
officially
supports it, since I recall some weirdness about getting exceptions if
you
referenced properties that didn't exist on native objects that were
exposed to
JS.
Just ran the fol
LGTM
Did you test it? It probably needs testing on IE6 if GWT still
officially supports it, since I recall some weirdness about getting
exceptions if you referenced properties that didn't exist on native
objects that were exposed to JS.
https://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1830803/
--
http://
16 matches
Mail list logo