[gwt-contrib] Re: Allow resource oracle to be expandable, speeds up client bundle in dev mode (issue1356801)
After discussing further with Scott, there's probably a better way to
solve this one. Closing this review and retooling.
It turns out this does result in a significant savings in practice, for
projects with lots of ClientBundles with resources outside of the module
space. So this approach will serve as an example solution for a
concrete problem.
But the solution should not alter the global ResourceOracle shared by
other unrelated generators. However, question is whether keeping a
local resource oracle for use only by ClientBundles would not incur
significant overhead, since it would imply adding a mechanism for
maintaining extra framework for handling per-generator resource oracles,
and refreshing them, etc.
Toby's longer term proposal of adding a custom a indexing classloader
implementation is a more promising approach here, since circumventing a
slow class loader lookup would no longer be necessary, and things would
just work (assuming the classloader can be kept up to date
successfully).
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1356801/diff/1/4
File
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/resource/impl/ExpandableResourceOracleImpl.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1356801/diff/1/4#newcode28
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/resource/impl/ExpandableResourceOracleImpl.java:28:
public class ExpandableResourceOracleImpl extends ResourceOracleImpl
well, getPathPrefixes is public on ResourcesOracleImpl (but not
ResourcesOracle), so currently, generators don't have access to it.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1356801/diff/1/5
File user/src/com/google/gwt/resources/ext/ResourceGeneratorUtil.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1356801/diff/1/5#newcode570
user/src/com/google/gwt/resources/ext/ResourceGeneratorUtil.java:570: if
(((GeneratorContextExt) genContext).isProdMode()) {
It's only dev mode, since the optimization depends on the initial
generator run discovering resource paths that caused a fallback to the
class loader, and then subsequent generator runs being able to take
advantage of the expanded resource oracle. Generators don't run
multiple times for a given moduleSpace's ResourceOracle, in prodMode.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1356801/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] [google-web-toolkit] r9727 committed - Added guava sources.
Revision: 9727 Author: gwt.mirror...@gmail.com Date: Fri Feb 11 07:53:11 2011 Log: Added guava sources. http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=9727 Added: /tools/lib/guava/guava-r06/guava-r06-rebased-src.zip /tools/lib/guava/guava-r06/guava-r06-src.zip === --- /dev/null +++ /tools/lib/guava/guava-r06/guava-r06-rebased-src.zip Fri Feb 11 07:53:11 2011 Binary file, no diff available. === --- /dev/null +++ /tools/lib/guava/guava-r06/guava-r06-src.zipFri Feb 11 07:53:11 2011 Binary file, no diff available. -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Updated speed tracer logging for JDTCompiler, CompilationStateBuilder (issue1356802)
Reviewers: zundel, Description: Updated speed tracer logging for JDTCompiler, CompilationStateBuilder Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1356802/show Affected files: M dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/CompilationState.java M dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/CompilationStateBuilder.java M dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/JdtCompiler.java M dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jdt/AbstractCompiler.java M dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/util/log/speedtracer/CompilerEventType.java M dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/util/log/speedtracer/DevModeEventType.java -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: Updated speed tracer logging for JDTCompiler, CompilationStateBuilder (issue1356802)
LGTM http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1356802/show -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: Added missing validation jars to gwt-user.jar. Fixes Issue 5950. (issue1323803)
ping On 2011/02/09 15:22:04, rchandia wrote: Removed the hibernate validation implementation as it is not necessary. I guess we need to decide between adding stuff to gwt-user.jar with this approach or to add the respective jars to each gwtc invocation as in: http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1342803/show On 2011/02/09 15:19:17, rchandia wrote: > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1323803/show -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: Added validation jars to all calls to GWTC to provide classes rquired by (issue1342803)
ping On 2011/02/09 15:23:23, rchandia wrote: On 2011/02/08 19:02:29, rjrjr wrote: > Don't you need to make the same changes to samples/expenses/pom.xml? Done. http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1342803/show -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: Added validation jars to all calls to GWTC to provide classes rquired by (issue1342803)
LGTM http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1342803/show -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: Added validation jars to all calls to GWTC to provide classes rquired by (issue1342803)
lgtm http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1342803/show -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: Proactively gathers more method names for MethodArgNamesLookup. Before this (issue1359801)
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1359801/show -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: Proactively gathers more method names for MethodArgNamesLookup. Before this (issue1359801)
updated patch
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1359801/diff/1/3
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/MethodParamCollector.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1359801/diff/1/3#newcode48
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/MethodParamCollector.java:48: if
(declaringClass == null || declaringClass.isLocalType()) {
On 2011/02/11 00:22:54, scottb wrote:
Are the null guards defensive, or have you actually run into them?
Especially
the declaringClass == null seems like an assertion that it's not.
I only added the null test in after running the unit tests blew up on
me. Its clints that have a null binding field. checking
declaringClass is probably overkill.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1359801/diff/1/5
File dev/core/test/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/impl/JavaResourceBase.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1359801/diff/1/5#newcode269
dev/core/test/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/impl/JavaResourceBase.java:269:
public static final MockJavaResource METHOD_ARGS_TEST = new
MockJavaResource(
On 2011/02/11 00:22:54, scottb wrote:
Please move to CompilationStateTest.
Done.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1359801/diff/6002/7
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/MethodParamCollector.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1359801/diff/6002/7#newcode22
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/MethodParamCollector.java:22:
import org.eclipse.jdt.internal.compiler.lookup.ReferenceBinding;
Not needed - removed locally.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1359801/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: Added missing validation jars to gwt-user.jar. Fixes Issue 5950. (issue1323803)
I'm confused by your last comment, "I guess we need to decide...", which points back to this issue. Who are you asking to choose between what? On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:38 AM, wrote: > ping > > On 2011/02/09 15:22:04, rchandia wrote: > >> Removed the hibernate validation implementation as it is not >> > necessary. > > I guess we need to decide between adding stuff to gwt-user.jar with >> > this > >> approach or to add the respective jars to each gwtc invocation as in: >> > > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1342803/show >> > > On 2011/02/09 15:19:17, rchandia wrote: >> > >> > > > > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1323803/show > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: Added missing validation jars to gwt-user.jar. Fixes Issue 5950. (issue1323803)
Oh, sorry. I guess I pasted confusingly similar links. So far there are two approaches to fix Issue 5950: http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1323803/show (This one) http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1342803/show (The other one) El 11 de febrero de 2011 12:48, Ray Ryan escribió: > I'm confused by your last comment, "I guess we need to decide...", which > points back to this issue. Who are you asking to choose between what? > > > On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:38 AM, wrote: > >> ping >> >> On 2011/02/09 15:22:04, rchandia wrote: >> >>> Removed the hibernate validation implementation as it is not >>> >> necessary. >> >> I guess we need to decide between adding stuff to gwt-user.jar with >>> >> this >> >>> approach or to add the respective jars to each gwtc invocation as in: >>> >> >> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1342803/show >>> >> >> On 2011/02/09 15:19:17, rchandia wrote: >>> > >>> >> >> >> >> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1323803/show >> > > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: Added missing validation jars to gwt-user.jar. Fixes Issue 5950. (issue1323803)
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Rodrigo Chandia wrote: > Oh, sorry. I guess I pasted confusingly similar links. So far there are two > approaches to fix Issue 5950: > > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1323803/show (This one) > > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1342803/show (The other one) > > > So adding to gwt-user seems like the simplest approach -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Eclipse autoformatter update: allow assignments to wrap. (issue1354803)
Reviewers: zundel, Description: Eclipse autoformatter update: allow assignments to wrap. Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1354803/show Affected files: M eclipse/settings/code-style/gwt-format.xml Index: eclipse/settings/code-style/gwt-format.xml === --- eclipse/settings/code-style/gwt-format.xml (revision 9726) +++ eclipse/settings/code-style/gwt-format.xml (working copy) @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ id="org.eclipse.jdt.core.formatter.alignment_for_arguments_in_explicit_constructor_call" value="16"/> id="org.eclipse.jdt.core.formatter.alignment_for_arguments_in_method_invocation" value="16"/> id="org.eclipse.jdt.core.formatter.alignment_for_arguments_in_qualified_allocation_expression" value="16"/> -value="0"/> +value="16"/> id="org.eclipse.jdt.core.formatter.alignment_for_binary_expression" value="16"/> value="48"/> id="org.eclipse.jdt.core.formatter.alignment_for_conditional_expression" value="16"/> -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: Eclipse autoformatter update: allow assignments to wrap. (issue1354803)
It's like eating potato chips, once you start... http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1354803/show -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: Added missing validation jars to gwt-user.jar. Fixes Issue 5950. (issue1323803)
El 11 de febrero de 2011 13:19, Nick Chalko escribió: > > > On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Rodrigo Chandia wrote: > >> Oh, sorry. I guess I pasted confusingly similar links. So far there are >> two approaches to fix Issue 5950: >> >> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1323803/show (This one) >> >> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1342803/show (The other one) >> >> >> > So adding to gwt-user seems like the simplest approach > Correct, but doing so could cause problems for someone trying to use their own validation classes (say version 1.0.1-GA with a small bug fix), right? That is why Ray commented above that this approach could bring Maven wrath upon us. I tried our expenses sample with Maven and Eclipse, but that as far as I can go with Maven given my lack of Maven-fu (white belt still). -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] [google-web-toolkit] r9728 committed - Updated speed tracer logging for JDTCompiler, CompilationStateBuilder...
Revision: 9728
Author: gwt.mirror...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Feb 11 07:11:32 2011
Log: Updated speed tracer logging for JDTCompiler, CompilationStateBuilder
Review at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1356802
Review by: zun...@google.com
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=9728
Modified:
/trunk/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/CompilationState.java
/trunk/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/CompilationStateBuilder.java
/trunk/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/JdtCompiler.java
/trunk/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jdt/AbstractCompiler.java
/trunk/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/util/log/speedtracer/CompilerEventType.java
/trunk/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/util/log/speedtracer/DevModeEventType.java
===
--- /trunk/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/CompilationState.java Wed
Dec 15 07:54:33 2010
+++ /trunk/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/CompilationState.java Fri
Feb 11 07:11:32 2011
@@ -52,12 +52,12 @@
private final CompileMoreLater compileMoreLater;
/**
- * Unmodifiable view of {@link #classFileMap).
+ * Unmodifiable view of {@link #classFileMap}.
*/
private final Map exposedClassFileMap =
Collections.unmodifiableMap(classFileMap);
/**
- * Unmodifiable view of {@link #classFileMapBySource).
+ * Unmodifiable view of {@link #classFileMapBySource}.
*/
private final Map exposedClassFileMapBySource =
Collections.unmodifiableMap(classFileMapBySource);
@@ -85,8 +85,7 @@
public void addGeneratedCompilationUnits(TreeLogger logger,
Collection generatedUnits) {
Event generatedUnitsAddEvent = SpeedTracerLogger.start(
-DevModeEventType.GENERATED_UNITS_ADD);
-
+DevModeEventType.COMP_STATE_ADD_GENERATED_UNITS);
try {
logger = logger.branch(TreeLogger.DEBUG, "Adding '"
+ generatedUnits.size() + "' new generated units");
===
---
/trunk/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/CompilationStateBuilder.java
Wed Feb 9 10:04:25 2011
+++
/trunk/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/CompilationStateBuilder.java
Fri Feb 11 07:11:32 2011
@@ -24,9 +24,11 @@
import com.google.gwt.dev.js.ast.JsRootScope;
import com.google.gwt.dev.resource.Resource;
import com.google.gwt.dev.util.StringInterner;
+import com.google.gwt.dev.util.log.speedtracer.CompilerEventType;
import com.google.gwt.dev.util.log.speedtracer.DevModeEventType;
import com.google.gwt.dev.util.log.speedtracer.SpeedTracerLogger;
import com.google.gwt.dev.util.log.speedtracer.SpeedTracerLogger.Event;
+import com.google.gwt.dev.util.log.speedtracer.SpeedTracerLogger.EventType;
import org.apache.commons.collections.map.AbstractReferenceMap;
import org.apache.commons.collections.map.ReferenceIdentityMap;
@@ -63,7 +65,7 @@
public void process(CompilationUnitBuilder builder,
CompilationUnitDeclaration cud, List
compiledClasses) {
-Event compilationStateBuilderProcess =
SpeedTracerLogger.start(DevModeEventType.COMPILATION_STATE_BUILDER_PROCESS);
+Event event =
SpeedTracerLogger.start(DevModeEventType.CSB_PROCESS);
try {
Map jsniMethods =
JsniCollector.collectJsniMethods(
cud, builder.getSource(), JsRootScope.INSTANCE,
@@ -128,7 +130,7 @@
}
newlyBuiltUnits.add(unit);
} finally {
- compilationStateBuilderProcess.end();
+ event.end();
}
}
}
@@ -159,11 +161,12 @@
public Collection addGeneratedTypes(TreeLogger logger,
Collection generatedUnits) {
- Event compilationStateBuilderProcess =
SpeedTracerLogger.start(DevModeEventType.COMPILATION_STATE_BUILDER_PROCESS);
+ Event event =
+SpeedTracerLogger.start(DevModeEventType.CSB_ADD_GENERATED_TYPES);
try {
return doBuildGeneratedTypes(logger, generatedUnits, this);
} finally {
-compilationStateBuilderProcess.end();
+event.end();
}
}
@@ -181,7 +184,8 @@
Collection compile(TreeLogger logger,
Collection builders,
-Map cachedUnits) {
+Map cachedUnits,
+EventType eventType) {
// Initialize the set of valid classes to the initially cached units.
for (CompilationUnit unit : cachedUnits.values()) {
for (CompiledClass cc : unit.getCompiledClasses()) {
@@ -196,8 +200,14 @@
do {
// Compile anything that needs to be compiled.
this.newlyBuiltUnits = new ArrayList();
-
-compiler.doCompile(builders);
+
+Event jdtCompilerEvent = SpeedTracerLogger.start(eventType);
+try {
+ compiler.doCompile(builders);
+} finally {
+ jdtCompilerEvent.end();
+}
+
resultUnits.addAll(this.newlyBuiltUnits);
builders.clear();
@@ -276,21 +286,21 @@
public static CompilationState buildFrom(TreeLogger logger,
Set resources) {
-Eve
[gwt-contrib] Re: Eclipse autoformatter update: allow assignments to wrap. (issue1354803)
Well, I personally like the way it looks: this.myPackage = StringInterner.get().intern( (myPackage.length() == 0) ? "" : (myPackage + '.')); becomes: this.myPackage = StringInterner.get().intern( (myPackage.length() == 0) ? "" : (myPackage + '.')); This is going to cause a lot of churn... http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1354803/show -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: Eclipse autoformatter update: allow assignments to wrap. (issue1354803)
On 2011/02/11 18:51:18, zundel wrote: Well, I personally like the way it looks: this.myPackage = StringInterner.get().intern( (myPackage.length() == 0) ? "" : (myPackage + '.')); becomes: this.myPackage = StringInterner.get().intern( (myPackage.length() == 0) ? "" : (myPackage + '.')); This is going to cause a lot of churn... Would it be reasonable to format the entire source tree at once, and have a single distasteful SVN commit? http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1354803/show -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: Eclipse autoformatter update: allow assignments to wrap. (issue1354803)
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:51 PM, wrote: > Well, I personally like the way it looks: > > this.myPackage = StringInterner.get().intern( > (myPackage.length() == 0) ? "" : (myPackage + '.')); > > becomes: > > this.myPackage = > StringInterner.get().intern( > (myPackage.length() == 0) ? "" : (myPackage + '.')); > > This is going to cause a lot of churn... I would prefer wrapping assignments only when it is necessary to fit on the line. Ie, this example, the first version is better (and has the advantage of being the way the source is now). The real problem with assignments is when they are really long, such as field initializers, and Eclipse won't break them at all. -- John A. Tamplin Software Engineer (GWT), Google -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: Proactively gathers more method names for MethodArgNamesLookup. Before this (issue1359801)
LGTM + nits http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1359801/diff/6002/7 File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/MethodParamCollector.java (right): http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1359801/diff/6002/7#newcode39 dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/MethodParamCollector.java:39: * visible in the TypeOracle. Maybe it's obvious, but I'm not sure I understand why a method with a binding to a local type, makes it not visible in type oracle (perhaps add another sentence explaining here?) (or at least elucidate me!) http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1359801/diff/6002/8 File dev/core/test/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/CompilationStateTest.java (right): http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1359801/diff/6002/8#newcode222 dev/core/test/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/CompilationStateTest.java:222: 80 chars? http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1359801/show -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: Proactively gathers more method names for MethodArgNamesLookup. Before this (issue1359801)
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1359801/diff/6002/7
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/MethodParamCollector.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1359801/diff/6002/7#newcode39
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/MethodParamCollector.java:39: *
visible in the TypeOracle.
On 2011/02/11 18:59:11, jbrosenberg wrote:
Maybe it's obvious, but I'm not sure I understand why a method with a
binding to
a local type, makes it not visible in type oracle (perhaps add another
sentence
explaining here?) (or at least elucidate me!)
Toby and I just went through this the other day - its only obvious to
the student of the JLS (section 14.3 for reference). A Local class has
a special meaning. Its a nested class, but is not a member of any
class - which means there is no way to refer to it outside that block of
code it was declared in.
void myMethod() {
class myLocalClass() {
int add(int a, int b) { return a + b; }
}
...
}
Since you can't refer to myLocalClass outside of the local scope
defined by myMethod they type oracle has no interest in it.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1359801/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: Eclipse autoformatter update: allow assignments to wrap. (issue1354803)
I can't find a way to weight the line breaks, to make it resort to assignments last. I'll drop this one. On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:57 AM, John Tamplin wrote: > On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:51 PM, wrote: > >> Well, I personally like the way it looks: >> >> this.myPackage = StringInterner.get().intern( >> (myPackage.length() == 0) ? "" : (myPackage + '.')); >> >> becomes: >> >> this.myPackage = >> StringInterner.get().intern( >> (myPackage.length() == 0) ? "" : (myPackage + '.')); >> >> This is going to cause a lot of churn... > > > I would prefer wrapping assignments only when it is necessary to fit on the > line. Ie, this example, the first version is better (and has the advantage > of being the way the source is now). The real problem with assignments is > when they are really long, such as field initializers, and Eclipse won't > break them at all. > > -- > John A. Tamplin > Software Engineer (GWT), Google > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] [google-web-toolkit] r9729 committed - Added antcount jars
Revision: 9729 Author: gwt.mirror...@gmail.com Date: Fri Feb 11 11:37:16 2011 Log: Added antcount jars http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=9729 Added: /tools/antlib/COPYING.antcount /tools/antlib/antcount-1.2-src.jar /tools/antlib/antcount-1.2.jar === --- /dev/null +++ /tools/antlib/COPYING.antcount Fri Feb 11 11:37:16 2011 @@ -0,0 +1,146 @@ +GNU Lesser General Public License + +Version 2.1, February 1999 + +Copyright (C) 1991, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. + +[This is the first released version of the Lesser GPL. It also counts as the successor of the GNU Library Public License, version 2, hence the version number 2.1.] + +Preamble + +The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public Licenses are intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. + +This license, the Lesser General Public License, applies to some specially designated software packages--typically libraries--of the Free Software Foundation and other authors who decide to use it. You can use it too, but we suggest you first think carefully about whether this license or the ordinary General Public License is the better strategy to use in any particular case, based on the explanations below. + +When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom of use, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish); that you receive source code or can get it if you want it; that you can change the software and use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you are informed that you can do these things. + +To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid distributors to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender these rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the library or if you modify it. + +For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave you. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. If you link other code with the library, you must provide complete object files to the recipients, so that they can relink them with the library after making changes to the library and recompiling it. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. + +We protect your rights with a two-step method: (1) we copyright the library, and (2) we offer you this license, which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the library. + +To protect each distributor, we want to make it very clear that there is no warranty for the free library. Also, if the library is modified by someone else and passed on, the recipients should know that what they have is not the original version, so that the original author's reputation will not be affected by problems that might be introduced by others. + +Finally, software patents pose a constant threat to the existence of any free program. We wish to make sure that a company cannot effectively restrict the users of a free program by obtaining a restrictive license from a patent holder. Therefore, we insist that any patent license obtained for a version of the library must be consistent with the full freedom of use specified in this license. + +Most GNU software, including some libraries, is covered by the ordinary GNU General Public License. This license, the GNU Lesser General Public License, applies to certain designated libraries, and is quite different from the ordinary General Public License. We use this license for certain libraries in order to permit linking those libraries into non-free programs. + +When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using a shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a combined work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary General Public License therefore permits such linking only if the entire combination fits its criteria of freedom. The Lesser General Public License permits more lax criteria for linking other code with the library. + +We call this license the "Lesser" General Public License because it does Less to protect the user's freedom than the ordinary General Public License. It also provides other free software developers Less of an advantage over competing non-free programs. These disadvantages are the reason we use the ordinary General Public License for many libraries. However, the
[gwt-contrib] Re: Added missing validation jars to gwt-user.jar. Fixes Issue 5950. (issue1323803)
If Dave has already LGTM'd one of the approaches as maven friendly, is there any reason not to go with that? What are the trade offs? On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Rodrigo Chandia wrote: > El 11 de febrero de 2011 13:19, Nick Chalko escribió: > > >> >> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Rodrigo Chandia wrote: >> >>> Oh, sorry. I guess I pasted confusingly similar links. So far there are >>> two approaches to fix Issue 5950: >>> >>> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1323803/show (This one) >>> >>> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1342803/show (The other one) >>> >>> >>> >> So adding to gwt-user seems like the simplest approach >> > > Correct, but doing so could cause problems for someone trying to use their > own validation classes (say version 1.0.1-GA with a small bug fix), right? > That is why Ray commented above that this approach could bring Maven wrath > upon us. I tried our expenses sample with Maven and Eclipse, but that as far > as I can go with Maven given my lack of Maven-fu (white belt still). > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: Proactively gathers more method names for MethodArgNamesLookup. Before this (issue1359801)
LGTM http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1359801/show -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: Added missing validation jars to gwt-user.jar. Fixes Issue 5950. (issue1323803)
El 11 de febrero de 2011 14:48, Ray Ryan escribió: > If Dave has already LGTM'd one of the approaches as maven friendly, is > there any reason not to go with that? What are the trade offs? No LGTM from David Chandler yet. But aside from that, from what David and I have discussed, both approaches are Maven friendly. The only remaining points of discussion seem to be maintainability and possible (yet unknown) conflicts with external versions of the validation API jars. Bundling the classes as done here forces every GWT user to compile with our version of javax.validation (so far the only one AFICT, and the user can still use any implementation on the server). The other Issue (1342803) touches more places in our ant build, but keep the validation jars separate and thus allow our users to easily choose to use other validation APIs (as long as the API is backwards compatible with validation-api-1.0.0.GA). I personally believe in modularity and de-bundling, so I lean toward the later option (Issue 1342803). In any case I'd be happy with either an LGTM here (issue1323803) from David or an unopposed LGTM in issue1342803. -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: Added validation jars to all calls to GWTC to provide classes rquired by (issue1342803)
LGTM http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1342803/show -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: Added missing validation jars to gwt-user.jar. Fixes Issue 5950. (issue1323803)
I was *convinced* those two numbers were the same. Dueling 803's! I agree, the de-bundled one smells a lot better. LGTM'd it. On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Rodrigo Chandia wrote: > El 11 de febrero de 2011 14:48, Ray Ryan escribió: > > If Dave has already LGTM'd one of the approaches as maven friendly, is >> there any reason not to go with that? What are the trade offs? > > > No LGTM from David Chandler yet. > > But aside from that, from what David and I have discussed, both approaches > are Maven friendly. The only remaining points of discussion seem to be > maintainability and possible (yet unknown) conflicts with external versions > of the validation API jars. Bundling the classes as done here forces every > GWT user to compile with our version of javax.validation (so far the only > one AFICT, and the user can still use any implementation on the server). > > The other Issue (1342803) touches more places in our ant build, but keep > the validation jars separate and thus allow our users to easily choose to > use other validation APIs (as long as the API is backwards compatible with > validation-api-1.0.0.GA). > > I personally believe in modularity and de-bundling, so I lean toward the > later option (Issue 1342803). In any case I'd be happy with either an LGTM > here (issue1323803) from David or an unopposed LGTM in issue1342803. > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] [google-web-toolkit] r9730 committed - Proactively gathers more method names for MethodArgNamesLookup. Befor...
Revision: 9730
Author: zun...@google.com
Date: Fri Feb 11 10:29:39 2011
Log: Proactively gathers more method names for MethodArgNamesLookup.
Before this
logic was only interested in abstract methods. Now it collects any non
local methods
with at least one argument.
Review at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1359801
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=9730
Modified:
/trunk/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/MethodArgNamesLookup.java
/trunk/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/MethodParamCollector.java
/trunk/dev/core/test/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/CompilationStateTest.java
===
--- /trunk/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/MethodArgNamesLookup.java
Thu Sep 23 07:20:47 2010
+++ /trunk/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/MethodArgNamesLookup.java
Fri Feb 11 10:29:39 2011
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
import org.eclipse.jdt.internal.compiler.ast.AbstractMethodDeclaration;
+import java.io.Serializable;
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.Map;
@@ -29,7 +30,7 @@
* Keeps track of method argument names that cannot be read from just the
* bytecode.
*/
-public class MethodArgNamesLookup {
+public class MethodArgNamesLookup implements Serializable {
private Map methodArgs;
@@ -97,4 +98,19 @@
String key = StringInterner.get().intern(buf.toString());
methodArgs.put(key, argNames);
}
-}
+
+ /**
+ * For Unit Testing: returns an array of methods with arguments.
+ */
+ String[] getMethods() {
+return methodArgs.keySet().toArray(new String[0]);
+ }
+
+ /**
+ * For Unit Testing: returns an array of argument names for the specified
+ * method.
+ */
+ String[] lookup(String methodName) {
+return methodArgs.get(methodName);
+ }
+}
===
--- /trunk/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/MethodParamCollector.java
Wed Feb 9 10:04:25 2011
+++ /trunk/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/MethodParamCollector.java
Fri Feb 11 10:29:39 2011
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
import org.eclipse.jdt.internal.compiler.ast.AbstractMethodDeclaration;
import org.eclipse.jdt.internal.compiler.ast.CompilationUnitDeclaration;
import org.eclipse.jdt.internal.compiler.ast.TypeDeclaration;
+import org.eclipse.jdt.internal.compiler.lookup.MethodBinding;
/**
* Collects method parameter names.
@@ -32,10 +33,20 @@
this.methodArgs = methodArgs;
}
+/**
+ * Collect information on methods with at least one argument that will
be
+ * visible in the TypeOracle.
+ */
@Override
protected boolean interestingMethod(AbstractMethodDeclaration method) {
- return method.arguments != null && method.arguments.length > 0
- && method.isAbstract();
+ if (method.arguments == null || method.arguments.length == 0) {
+return false;
+ }
+ MethodBinding binding = method.binding;
+ if (binding == null || binding.declaringClass.isLocalType()) {
+return false;
+ }
+ return true;
}
@Override
===
--- /trunk/dev/core/test/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/CompilationStateTest.java
Mon Aug 30 09:54:26 2010
+++ /trunk/dev/core/test/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/CompilationStateTest.java
Fri Feb 11 10:29:39 2011
@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
import com.google.gwt.dev.javac.impl.MockResourceOracle;
import com.google.gwt.dev.javac.impl.TweakedMockJavaResource;
+import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.Collections;
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.HashSet;
@@ -74,7 +75,7 @@
testCaching(JavaResourceBase.FOO);
}
- /* test that mutiple generated units, if unchanged, are reused */
+ /* test that multiple generated units, if unchanged, are reused */
public void testCachingOfMultipleUnits() {
testCaching(JavaResourceBase.BAR, JavaResourceBase.FOO);
}
@@ -218,6 +219,55 @@
assertNotNull(newBar);
assertNotSame(oldBar, newBar);
}
+
+ public void testMethodArgs() {
+MockJavaResource resource = new
MockJavaResource("test.MethodArgsTest") {
+ @Override
+ protected CharSequence getContent() {
+StringBuffer code = new StringBuffer();
+code.append("package test;\n");
+code.append("public abstract class MethodArgsTest {\n");
+code.append(" public abstract void anAbstractMethod(String
aArg1);\n");
+code.append(" public native void aNativeMethod(String nArg1, int
nArg2);\n");
+code.append(" public void aMethod(String mArg1, int mArg2, char
mArg3) {}\n");
+code.append(" public void aNoArgMethod() {}\n");
+code.append("}\n");
+return code;
+ }
+};
+
+validateCompilationState();
+oracle.add(resource);
+rebuildCompilationState();
+validateCompilationState();
+Map unitMap = state.getCompilationUnitMap();
+MethodArgNamesLookup methodArgs =
unitMap.get(Shared.getTypeName(resource)).getMethodArgs();
+String[] methods = methodArgs.getMet
[gwt-contrib] [google-web-toolkit] r9731 committed - Added validation jars to all calls to GWTC to provide classes rquired ...
Revision: 9731
Author: rchan...@google.com
Date: Fri Feb 11 11:12:39 2011
Log: Added validation jars to all calls to GWTC to provide classes rquired
by
client-side validation. Fixes Issue 5950.
Review at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1342803
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=9731
Modified:
/trunk/distro-source/build.xml
/trunk/samples/common.ant.xml
/trunk/samples/expenses/pom.xml
/trunk/tools/benchmark-viewer/build.xml
/trunk/user/src/com/google/gwt/user/tools/.classpathsrc
/trunk/user/src/com/google/gwt/user/tools/WebAppCreator.java
/trunk/user/src/com/google/gwt/user/tools/project.ant.xmlsrc
===
--- /trunk/distro-source/build.xml Fri Oct 22 10:36:00 2010
+++ /trunk/distro-source/build.xml Fri Feb 11 11:12:39 2011
@@ -30,6 +30,10 @@
prefix="${project.distname}" />
+
+ file="${gwt.tools}/lib/javax/validation/validation-api-1.0.0.GA.jar"
prefix="${project.distname}" />
+ file="${gwt.tools}/lib/javax/validation/validation-api-1.0.0.GA-sources.jar"
prefix="${project.distname}" />
+
===
--- /trunk/samples/common.ant.xml Mon Dec 20 11:43:41 2010
+++ /trunk/samples/common.ant.xml Fri Feb 11 11:12:39 2011
@@ -103,6 +103,8 @@
/>
+ location="${gwt.tools.lib}/javax/validation/validation-api-1.0.0.GA.jar" />
+ location="${gwt.tools.lib}/javax/validation/validation-api-1.0.0.GA-sources.jar"
/>
===
--- /trunk/samples/expenses/pom.xml Tue Feb 8 11:03:03 2011
+++ /trunk/samples/expenses/pom.xml Fri Feb 11 11:12:39 2011
@@ -226,6 +226,12 @@
1.0.0.GA
+javax.validation
+validation-api
+1.0.0.GA
+source
+
+
cglib
cglib-nodep
2.2
===
--- /trunk/tools/benchmark-viewer/build.xml Tue Oct 13 16:57:19 2009
+++ /trunk/tools/benchmark-viewer/build.xml Fri Feb 11 11:12:39 2011
@@ -60,6 +60,8 @@
+location="${gwt.tools.lib}/javax/validation/validation-api-1.0.0.GA.jar"/>
+location="${gwt.tools.lib}/javax/validation/validation-api-1.0.0.GA-sources.jar"/>
===
--- /trunk/user/src/com/google/gwt/user/tools/.classpathsrc Wed Oct 13
05:26:50 2010
+++ /trunk/user/src/com/google/gwt/user/tools/.classpathsrc Fri Feb 11
11:12:39 2011
@@ -3,6 +3,8 @@
@eclipseTestDir
+
+
path="org.eclipse.jdt.launching.JRE_CONTAINER"/>
path="org.eclipse.jdt.junit.JUNIT_CONTAINER/3"/>
===
--- /trunk/user/src/com/google/gwt/user/tools/WebAppCreator.java Fri Oct 22
10:36:00 2010
+++ /trunk/user/src/com/google/gwt/user/tools/WebAppCreator.java Fri Feb 11
11:12:39 2011
@@ -308,6 +308,8 @@
// GWT libraries
String gwtUserPath = installPath + '/' + "gwt-user.jar";
String gwtDevPath = installPath + '/' + "gwt-dev.jar";
+String gwtValidationPath = installPath + '/'
+ "validation-api-1.0.0.GA.jar";
+String gwtValidationSourcesPath = installPath + '/'
+ "validation-api-1.0.0.GA-sources.jar";
// Public builds generate a DTD reference.
String gwtModuleDtd = "";
@@ -358,6 +360,8 @@
replacements.put("@gwtSdk", installPath);
replacements.put("@gwtUserPath", gwtUserPath);
replacements.put("@gwtDevPath", gwtDevPath);
+replacements.put("@gwtValidationPath", gwtValidationPath);
+replacements.put("@gwtValidationSourcesPath",
gwtValidationSourcesPath);
replacements.put("@gwtVersion", About.getGwtVersionNum());
replacements.put("@gwtModuleDtd", gwtModuleDtd);
replacements.put("@shellClass", DevMode.class.getName());
===
--- /trunk/user/src/com/google/gwt/user/tools/project.ant.xmlsrc Fri Oct 22
10:36:00 2010
+++ /trunk/user/src/com/google/gwt/user/tools/project.ant.xmlsrc Fri Feb 11
11:12:39 2011
@@ -39,6 +39,8 @@
+
+
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
