Re: GWT compiler option to simply validate code
Now that I am using the -validateOnly option, I can see that it is a much better option than the special Build module that I created. The GWT compiler ignores unused code, and so much of the code in my library was not being validated when I compiled via the Build module. But now that I am using the -validateOnly option, I can run the compiler directly on the library, and it validates all of the code. Thanks again, Mike On Nov 19, 10:12 am, MonkeyMike mikebin...@gmail.com wrote: Awesome! Thanks! :) On Nov 19, 2:19 am, Thomas Broyer t.bro...@gmail.com wrote: On Nov 19, 2:52 am, MonkeyMike mikebin...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I am creating a GWT Overlay Type library, and have just written an ant build file for creating the JAR file that GWT applications will import. To maintain code integrity, I make the JAR creation depend on a java compile of all the code, and also a gwt compile. Obviously, this is meant to ensure that the code in the library is acceptable Java, and also that it is acceptable GWT. When I run the GWT compiler, however, I get an error related to the fact that my library has no entry point... - Buildfile: C:\Data\Dev\EclipseWorkspaceTrunk\gwtgfx\build.xml javac-compile: [javac] Compiling 2 source files to C:\Data\Dev \EclipseWorkspaceTrunk\gwtgfx\build\javac gwt-compile: [java] Compiling module gwtgfx.GwtGfx [java] [ERROR] Module has no entry points defined BUILD FAILED C:\Data\Dev\EclipseWorkspaceTrunk\gwtgfx\build.xml:25: The following error occurred while executing this line: C:\Data\Dev\EclipseWorkspaceTrunk\gwtgfx\build.xml:45: Java returned: 1 Total time: 3 seconds - Of course, it makes perfect sense that my library has no entry point since it is, in fact, a library... not an application. Is there an option for the GWT compiler to do only the parts that I want here? I want the GWT compiler to ensure, for example, that all of my JavaScriptObject subclasses follow the specified restrictions (has a protected no-arg constructor, instance methods are final, etc)... and anything else that the GWT compiler might do now, or in the future, to check that the GWT code is valid. If not having an entry point means that there is no reasonable way to do one or more of the compiler steps, then that should be okay because those steps probably aren't relevant for a library anyways. As a temporary hack, I guess I am going to include an entry point, but I really don't want to ship this. Is there a better alternative? Thanks in advance. :) There's a -validateOnly flag that doesn't mandate an entry point (and should check that all public classes can be compiled). -- 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.
Re: Unknown type evolves from overriding functions in Javascript
Still looking for an answer on this one... I am puzzled as to how to
do this!
By the way, I realized during some other debugging that this bit of
code is one of many places where I was forgetting to state the $wnd
namespace. So here is the latest version of the problematic code...
public static native void declareCustomMoveable(String
customMoveableId, NativeCustomMoveableCallback callback) /*-{
$wnd.dojo.declare( customMoveableId, $wnd.dojox.gfx.Moveable, {
onFirstMove: function(mover){
callba...@gwtgfx.client.callback.custommoveablecallback::onFirstMove
();
},
onMoving: function(mover, shift){
callba...@gwtgfx.client.callback.custommoveablecallback::onMoving(
Lgwtgfx/client/definition/jsni/NativeTransformDefinition;
)(shift);
},
onMoved: function(mover, shift){
callba...@gwtgfx.client.callback.custommoveablecallback::onMoved(
Lgwtgfx/client/definition/jsni/NativeTransformDefinition;
)(shift);
}
});
}-*/;
Looking forward to the solution!
Cheers,
Mike
On Nov 20, 11:03 am, MonkeyMike mikebin...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for the strange formatting, by the way. I simply copy-and-
pasted my code.
On Nov 20, 10:58 am, MonkeyMike mikebin...@gmail.com wrote:
I have some JSNI that the GWT compiler doesn't like...
--
public static native void declareCustomMoveable(String
customMoveableId, NativeCustomMoveableCallback callback) /*-{
dojo.declare( customMoveableId, dojox.gfx.Moveable, {
onFirstMove: function(mover){
callba...@gwtgfx.client.callback.custommoveablecallback::onFirstMove
();
},
onMoving: function(mover, shift){
callba...@gwtgfx.client.callback.custommoveablecallback::onMoving(
Lgwtgfx/client/definition/jsni/NativeTransformDefinition;
)(shift);
},
onMoved: function(mover, shift){
callba...@gwtgfx.client.callback.custommoveablecallback::onMoved(
Lgwtgfx/client/definition/jsni/NativeTransformDefinition;
)(shift);
}
});
}-*/;
--
Note that I am using dojo's pattern for subclassing
dojox.gfx.Moveable, and overriding the methods onFirstMove, onMoving,
and onMoved. In each of these, there is a call to the relevant method
from NativeCustomMoveableCallback.java (which is a Java interface, by
the way). The GWT compiler is okay with the onFirstMove
implementation, but for both the onMoving and onMoved implementations,
I get the following error...
Expected a valid parameter type signature in JSNI method reference
Note that I have indicated that shift is an instance of a
NativeTransformDefinition, which is a subclass of JavaScriptObject in
my library. Isn't this valid? I thought that the GWT compiler
trusts the developer to indicate types of objects that come from
JavaScript, so long as the types are subclasses of JavaScriptObject.
So is it just that my syntax is somehow incorrect? I'm using GWT
1.7. If not, how can I refactor this to achieve a pattern which is
acceptable to the GWT compiler?
Thanks in advance! :)
--
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.
Re: Unknown type evolves from overriding functions in Javascript
Wow... okay, I think I figured it out! It turns out that, at least
with GWT 1.7.0, whitespace matters. The following code turned out to
be valid...
---
public static native void declareCustomMoveable(String
customMoveableId,
NativeCustomMoveableCallback callback) /*-{
$wnd.dojo.declare( customMoveableId, $wnd.dojox.gfx.Moveable, {
onFirstMove: function(mover){
callba...@gwtgfx.client.callback.custommoveablecallback::onFirstMove
();
},
onMoving: function(mover, shift){
callba...@gwtgfx.client.callback.jsni.nativecustommoveablecallback::onMoving
(Lgwtgfx/client/definition/jsni/NativeTransformDefinition;)(shift);
},
onMoved: function(mover, shift){
callba...@gwtgfx.client.callback.jsni.nativecustommoveablecallback::onMoved
(Lgwtgfx/client/definition/jsni/NativeTransformDefinition;)(shift);
}
});
}-*/;
---
Please ignore the change in class and package names in this code,
compared to the previous posts. I realize that there were other
errors there, but that's not what this is about. The GWT compiler
didn't like how I was putting the type declarations on their own
lines.
Sorry for the confusion... but I suppose this is still a useful
post, since I discovered how much whitespace matters here.
Cheers,
Mike
On Nov 23, 6:02 pm, MonkeyMike mikebin...@gmail.com wrote:
Still looking for an answer on this one... I am puzzled as to how to
do this!
By the way, I realized during some other debugging that this bit of
code is one of many places where I was forgetting to state the $wnd
namespace. So here is the latest version of the problematic code...
public static native void declareCustomMoveable(String
customMoveableId, NativeCustomMoveableCallback callback) /*-{
$wnd.dojo.declare( customMoveableId, $wnd.dojox.gfx.Moveable, {
onFirstMove: function(mover){
callba...@gwtgfx.client.callback.custommoveablecallback::onFirstMove
();
},
onMoving: function(mover, shift){
callba...@gwtgfx.client.callback.custommoveablecallback::onMoving(
Lgwtgfx/client/definition/jsni/NativeTransformDefinition;
)(shift);
},
onMoved: function(mover, shift){
callba...@gwtgfx.client.callback.custommoveablecallback::onMoved(
Lgwtgfx/client/definition/jsni/NativeTransformDefinition;
)(shift);
}
});}-*/;
Looking forward to the solution!
Cheers,
Mike
On Nov 20, 11:03 am, MonkeyMike mikebin...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for the strange formatting, by the way. I simply copy-and-
pasted my code.
On Nov 20, 10:58 am, MonkeyMike mikebin...@gmail.com wrote:
I have some JSNI that the GWT compiler doesn't like...
--
public static native void declareCustomMoveable(String
customMoveableId, NativeCustomMoveableCallback callback) /*-{
dojo.declare( customMoveableId, dojox.gfx.Moveable, {
onFirstMove: function(mover){
callba...@gwtgfx.client.callback.custommoveablecallback::onFirstMove
();
},
onMoving: function(mover, shift){
callba...@gwtgfx.client.callback.custommoveablecallback::onMoving(
Lgwtgfx/client/definition/jsni/NativeTransformDefinition;
)(shift);
},
onMoved: function(mover, shift){
callba...@gwtgfx.client.callback.custommoveablecallback::onMoved(
Lgwtgfx/client/definition/jsni/NativeTransformDefinition;
)(shift);
}
});
}-*/;
--
Note that I am using dojo's pattern for subclassing
dojox.gfx.Moveable, and overriding the methods onFirstMove, onMoving,
and onMoved. In each of these, there is a call to the relevant method
from NativeCustomMoveableCallback.java (which is a Java interface, by
the way). The GWT compiler is okay with the onFirstMove
implementation, but for both the onMoving and onMoved implementations,
I get the following error...
Expected a valid parameter type signature in JSNI method reference
Note that I have indicated that shift is an instance of a
NativeTransformDefinition, which is a subclass
Unknown type evolves from overriding functions in Javascript
I have some JSNI that the GWT compiler doesn't like...
--
public static native void declareCustomMoveable(String
customMoveableId, NativeCustomMoveableCallback callback) /*-{
dojo.declare( customMoveableId, dojox.gfx.Moveable, {
onFirstMove: function(mover){
callba...@gwtgfx.client.callback.custommoveablecallback::onFirstMove
();
},
onMoving: function(mover, shift){
callba...@gwtgfx.client.callback.custommoveablecallback::onMoving(
Lgwtgfx/client/definition/jsni/NativeTransformDefinition;
)(shift);
},
onMoved: function(mover, shift){
callba...@gwtgfx.client.callback.custommoveablecallback::onMoved(
Lgwtgfx/client/definition/jsni/NativeTransformDefinition;
)(shift);
}
});
}-*/;
--
Note that I am using dojo's pattern for subclassing
dojox.gfx.Moveable, and overriding the methods onFirstMove, onMoving,
and onMoved. In each of these, there is a call to the relevant method
from NativeCustomMoveableCallback.java (which is a Java interface, by
the way). The GWT compiler is okay with the onFirstMove
implementation, but for both the onMoving and onMoved implementations,
I get the following error...
Expected a valid parameter type signature in JSNI method reference
Note that I have indicated that shift is an instance of a
NativeTransformDefinition, which is a subclass of JavaScriptObject in
my library. Isn't this valid? I thought that the GWT compiler
trusts the developer to indicate types of objects that come from
JavaScript, so long as the types are subclasses of JavaScriptObject.
So is it just that my syntax is somehow incorrect? I'm using GWT
1.7. If not, how can I refactor this to achieve a pattern which is
acceptable to the GWT compiler?
Thanks in advance! :)
--
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=.
Re: Unknown type evolves from overriding functions in Javascript
Sorry for the strange formatting, by the way. I simply copy-and-
pasted my code.
On Nov 20, 10:58 am, MonkeyMike mikebin...@gmail.com wrote:
I have some JSNI that the GWT compiler doesn't like...
--
public static native void declareCustomMoveable(String
customMoveableId, NativeCustomMoveableCallback callback) /*-{
dojo.declare( customMoveableId, dojox.gfx.Moveable, {
onFirstMove: function(mover){
callba...@gwtgfx.client.callback.custommoveablecallback::onFirstMove
();
},
onMoving: function(mover, shift){
callba...@gwtgfx.client.callback.custommoveablecallback::onMoving(
Lgwtgfx/client/definition/jsni/NativeTransformDefinition;
)(shift);
},
onMoved: function(mover, shift){
callba...@gwtgfx.client.callback.custommoveablecallback::onMoved(
Lgwtgfx/client/definition/jsni/NativeTransformDefinition;
)(shift);
}
});
}-*/;
--
Note that I am using dojo's pattern for subclassing
dojox.gfx.Moveable, and overriding the methods onFirstMove, onMoving,
and onMoved. In each of these, there is a call to the relevant method
from NativeCustomMoveableCallback.java (which is a Java interface, by
the way). The GWT compiler is okay with the onFirstMove
implementation, but for both the onMoving and onMoved implementations,
I get the following error...
Expected a valid parameter type signature in JSNI method reference
Note that I have indicated that shift is an instance of a
NativeTransformDefinition, which is a subclass of JavaScriptObject in
my library. Isn't this valid? I thought that the GWT compiler
trusts the developer to indicate types of objects that come from
JavaScript, so long as the types are subclasses of JavaScriptObject.
So is it just that my syntax is somehow incorrect? I'm using GWT
1.7. If not, how can I refactor this to achieve a pattern which is
acceptable to the GWT compiler?
Thanks in advance! :)
--
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=.
Re: GWT compiler option to simply validate code
Awesome! Thanks! :) On Nov 19, 2:19 am, Thomas Broyer t.bro...@gmail.com wrote: On Nov 19, 2:52 am, MonkeyMike mikebin...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I am creating a GWT Overlay Type library, and have just written an ant build file for creating the JAR file that GWT applications will import. To maintain code integrity, I make the JAR creation depend on a java compile of all the code, and also a gwt compile. Obviously, this is meant to ensure that the code in the library is acceptable Java, and also that it is acceptable GWT. When I run the GWT compiler, however, I get an error related to the fact that my library has no entry point... - Buildfile: C:\Data\Dev\EclipseWorkspaceTrunk\gwtgfx\build.xml javac-compile: [javac] Compiling 2 source files to C:\Data\Dev \EclipseWorkspaceTrunk\gwtgfx\build\javac gwt-compile: [java] Compiling module gwtgfx.GwtGfx [java] [ERROR] Module has no entry points defined BUILD FAILED C:\Data\Dev\EclipseWorkspaceTrunk\gwtgfx\build.xml:25: The following error occurred while executing this line: C:\Data\Dev\EclipseWorkspaceTrunk\gwtgfx\build.xml:45: Java returned: 1 Total time: 3 seconds - Of course, it makes perfect sense that my library has no entry point since it is, in fact, a library... not an application. Is there an option for the GWT compiler to do only the parts that I want here? I want the GWT compiler to ensure, for example, that all of my JavaScriptObject subclasses follow the specified restrictions (has a protected no-arg constructor, instance methods are final, etc)... and anything else that the GWT compiler might do now, or in the future, to check that the GWT code is valid. If not having an entry point means that there is no reasonable way to do one or more of the compiler steps, then that should be okay because those steps probably aren't relevant for a library anyways. As a temporary hack, I guess I am going to include an entry point, but I really don't want to ship this. Is there a better alternative? Thanks in advance. :) There's a -validateOnly flag that doesn't mandate an entry point (and should check that all public classes can be compiled). -- 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=.
@SingleJsoImpl in GWT 2.0??
Dear GWT 2.0 developers, I noticed the latest announcement about GWT 2.0, Milestone 2, here... http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit/browse_thread/thread/15f20608f0a73b73 ...and I noticed that it does not make any mention of the @SingleJsoImpl feature, which is described here... http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/wiki/OverlayTypes Can we still expect this feature in GWT 2.0? To provide a little more detail: I have been creating a GWT Overlay Type library for Dojo's GFX library, and I have encountered the difficulty of creating access to an overlay type without an intermediate type. My solution, for now, is to create public access to all of the overlay types and have a delegate library of types that use the overlay types. The pur;pose of the delegate types are to offer a more acceptable Java API, since they are not subclasses of JavaScriptObject and therefore do not have the JavaScriptObject restrictions. So, for example, where an overlay type can only provide a final method, the corresponding delegate type can provide a non- final method, which calls the overlay type's final method. However, these delegate types are problematic because they involve a lot of extra object creation that does not occur when using the overlay types directly. So it seems like I can resolve some of this with the use of @SingleJsoImpl, and I am wondering whether or not I can surely expect this in GWT 2.0. -- 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.
Re: @SingleJsoImpl in GWT 2.0??
That's great! Thanks for the quick reply. :) On Nov 18, 12:43 pm, Chris Ramsdale cramsd...@google.com wrote: The functionality that you are looking for is in 2.0. The compiler simply figures it out, so there's no need for an explicit annotation. - Chris On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 3:25 PM, MonkeyMike mikebin...@gmail.com wrote: Dear GWT 2.0 developers, I noticed the latest announcement about GWT 2.0, Milestone 2, here... http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit/browse_thread/threa... ...and I noticed that it does not make any mention of the @SingleJsoImpl feature, which is described here... http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/wiki/OverlayTypes Can we still expect this feature in GWT 2.0? To provide a little more detail: I have been creating a GWT Overlay Type library for Dojo's GFX library, and I have encountered the difficulty of creating access to an overlay type without an intermediate type. My solution, for now, is to create public access to all of the overlay types and have a delegate library of types that use the overlay types. The pur;pose of the delegate types are to offer a more acceptable Java API, since they are not subclasses of JavaScriptObject and therefore do not have the JavaScriptObject restrictions. So, for example, where an overlay type can only provide a final method, the corresponding delegate type can provide a non- final method, which calls the overlay type's final method. However, these delegate types are problematic because they involve a lot of extra object creation that does not occur when using the overlay types directly. So it seems like I can resolve some of this with the use of @SingleJsoImpl, and I am wondering whether or not I can surely expect this in GWT 2.0. -- 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.comgoogle-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=.
GWT compiler option to simply validate code
Hello, I am creating a GWT Overlay Type library, and have just written an ant build file for creating the JAR file that GWT applications will import. To maintain code integrity, I make the JAR creation depend on a java compile of all the code, and also a gwt compile. Obviously, this is meant to ensure that the code in the library is acceptable Java, and also that it is acceptable GWT. When I run the GWT compiler, however, I get an error related to the fact that my library has no entry point... - Buildfile: C:\Data\Dev\EclipseWorkspaceTrunk\gwtgfx\build.xml javac-compile: [javac] Compiling 2 source files to C:\Data\Dev \EclipseWorkspaceTrunk\gwtgfx\build\javac gwt-compile: [java] Compiling module gwtgfx.GwtGfx [java][ERROR] Module has no entry points defined BUILD FAILED C:\Data\Dev\EclipseWorkspaceTrunk\gwtgfx\build.xml:25: The following error occurred while executing this line: C:\Data\Dev\EclipseWorkspaceTrunk\gwtgfx\build.xml:45: Java returned: 1 Total time: 3 seconds - Of course, it makes perfect sense that my library has no entry point since it is, in fact, a library... not an application. Is there an option for the GWT compiler to do only the parts that I want here? I want the GWT compiler to ensure, for example, that all of my JavaScriptObject subclasses follow the specified restrictions (has a protected no-arg constructor, instance methods are final, etc)... and anything else that the GWT compiler might do now, or in the future, to check that the GWT code is valid. If not having an entry point means that there is no reasonable way to do one or more of the compiler steps, then that should be okay because those steps probably aren't relevant for a library anyways. As a temporary hack, I guess I am going to include an entry point, but I really don't want to ship this. Is there a better alternative? Thanks in advance. :) -- 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=.
Re: GWT compiler option to simply validate code
Although I'm still very interested to get an answer to my previous post, I have just implemented the temporary hack that I mentioned, and I actually would say that it's a good approach. I created a Build gwt module, which has an entry point, and inherits the overlay type library. I edited my ant file's gwt-compile target so that it runs a gwt-compile on the Build module, and the gwt-compile succeeded. There are 2 nice things about this approach... 1) The make-jar target can create a jar file which only contains code from the library, and so I don't have to ship the build module. 2) The Build module's entry point actually is a nice space to write some code which uses the library, as another set of tests. I haven't done this yet, but in theory I could write some code which calls all of the code in the library, and this would ensure that the intended usage of the library is compliant with the GWT compiler as well. However, perhaps this is redundant if the library has a suite of unit tests. Anyways, as I said, I'm still curious to know how I might be able to run the gwt-compiler to execute only those compile steps which are relevant to a library (as opposed to an application). Cheers, Mike On Nov 18, 5:52 pm, MonkeyMike mikebin...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I am creating a GWT Overlay Type library, and have just written an ant build file for creating the JAR file that GWT applications will import. To maintain code integrity, I make the JAR creation depend on a java compile of all the code, and also a gwt compile. Obviously, this is meant to ensure that the code in the library is acceptable Java, and also that it is acceptable GWT. When I run the GWT compiler, however, I get an error related to the fact that my library has no entry point... - Buildfile: C:\Data\Dev\EclipseWorkspaceTrunk\gwtgfx\build.xml javac-compile: [javac] Compiling 2 source files to C:\Data\Dev \EclipseWorkspaceTrunk\gwtgfx\build\javac gwt-compile: [java] Compiling module gwtgfx.GwtGfx [java] [ERROR] Module has no entry points defined BUILD FAILED C:\Data\Dev\EclipseWorkspaceTrunk\gwtgfx\build.xml:25: The following error occurred while executing this line: C:\Data\Dev\EclipseWorkspaceTrunk\gwtgfx\build.xml:45: Java returned: 1 Total time: 3 seconds - Of course, it makes perfect sense that my library has no entry point since it is, in fact, a library... not an application. Is there an option for the GWT compiler to do only the parts that I want here? I want the GWT compiler to ensure, for example, that all of my JavaScriptObject subclasses follow the specified restrictions (has a protected no-arg constructor, instance methods are final, etc)... and anything else that the GWT compiler might do now, or in the future, to check that the GWT code is valid. If not having an entry point means that there is no reasonable way to do one or more of the compiler steps, then that should be okay because those steps probably aren't relevant for a library anyways. As a temporary hack, I guess I am going to include an entry point, but I really don't want to ship this. Is there a better alternative? Thanks in advance. :) -- 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=.
Problem with Element.getFirstChildElement()
I think I may have found a GWT bug. Please let me know if there is a
better place to post this...
Consider this code from a JSTL tag…
div id=existingFriendsAddressBook
ul
c:forEach items=${friends} var=friend
c:set
var=friendEmail${fn:toLowerCase(friend.email)}/c:set
li
input type=checkbox
id=existingFriend_${friendEmail} / $
{friendEmail}
/li
/c:forEach
/ul
/div
…and this GWT code, which tries to get a reference to each of the
checkboxes created in that tag…
@Override
protected void build() {
DivElement existingFriendsAddressBook =
DivElement.as(DOM.getElementById
(existingFriendsAddressBook));
UListElement list =
UListElement.as
(existingFriendsAddressBook.getFirstChildElement());
NodeListNode children = list.getChildNodes();
int numFriends = children.getLength();
for (int i = 0; i numFriends; i++) {
LIElement row = LIElement.as((Element) children.getItem(i));
Element firstChild = row.getFirstChildElement();
InputElement checkbox = InputElement.as(firstChild);
String checkboxId = checkbox.getId();
[do stuff with checkboxId, unrelated to this post]
}
}
It turns out that IN FIREFOX ONLY, the variable “firstChild” is
null, and I believe this is a bug in Element’s getFirstChildElement
(). I changed the code to the following, and there is no longer an
error…
LIElement row = LIElement.as((Element) children.getItem(i));
NodeListNode subchildren = row.getChildNodes();
InputElement checkbox = InputElement.as((Element) subchildren.getItem
(0));
String checkboxId = checkbox.getId();
A call to GWT.getVersion() returns 1.5.2
As you can see, I have found a work-around, so this isn't urgent...
just a heads-up! :)
-Monkey Mike
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
