Sorry for the delay in getting back to you (and to my reviews, got at least
one up to date now), finally catching up after a few days off.
I guess I was looking for We want to use Object.create in Core in your
initial email. If we also wanted any/all of the features I had listed (fast
byte[]/int[]/double[] for everyone? rpc-over-ws? cors?), dropping ie9 from
Core might have also made sense.
I'm not actually encouraging cutting IE9 (or 8), esp from User, but if we
want to move some emulation code off to UserAgent or User, letting go of
IE9 may make sense.
My email was written from the perspective of huh, Goktug wants to drop IE8
because it will make *something* easier - won't also dropping IE9 make more
something even more easier?. With the caveat that all you are interested
in is Object.create, targeting only IE8 makes sense.
On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 12:02:50 AM UTC-5, Goktug Gokdogan wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Colin Alworth nilo...@gmail.com
javascript: wrote:
Sounds great, but is there a reason that we're now starting at IE9+ and
not IE10+, thus giving us typed arrays, web workers, web sockets, etc? I
only ask because the kind of case where you are giving up User (and Widget,
RPC, Timer, and other fairly high-level apis) seems to suggest that you
might not be writing for a browser at all (htmlunit, nashorn, web worker,
node.js).
A cross-compiled app is a good example that doesn't need User where you
can, for example, use closure to develop the UI.
I specifically pointed IE8 as it is the only supported browser missing
Object.create functionality and such apps that just depends on java.emul
are paying the price of IE8. On the other hand by just inheriting
useragent.UserAgent (not necessarily the User) an app can target older
browsers.
Dan definitely has a point that if we're supporting modern browsers for a
core chunk of functionality, we really shouldn't let 'modern' be 'whatever
junk still happens to be running rather tha updating'. And besides, I can't
always be That Guy pushing to keep all versions forever, just because IE8
is still 11% of North America's browser usage (really:
http://theie8countdown.com/).
If we're cutting a browser for being old/bad/whatever in Core, but
leaving support for it still in User, we should consider carefully why we
*aren't* cutting deeper.
Can you be more specific?
On Monday, June 30, 2014 2:59:12 PM UTC-5, Goktug Gokdogan wrote:
We are planning to drop support for IE8 if the application doesn't
inherit c.g.gwt.useragent.UserAgent and hence not have browser permutations.
Nearly all of today's apps inherit User so they will not be affected by
this change. In the future more apps will only inherit Core however they
shouldn't need to pay price of IE8 support (currently they do because there
are no permutations in Core).
Let me know if you have any concerns.
- Goktug
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
GWT Contributors group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
javascript:.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/45b68163-0d07-4a6c-9932-412232e2f71d%40googlegroups.com
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/45b68163-0d07-4a6c-9932-412232e2f71d%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=emailutm_source=footer
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups GWT
Contributors group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/8e78df45-4d71-4dcf-9fea-52d32fc58d65%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
