Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: Refactoring to one top level class per .java file, since some (issue686801)

2010-07-14 Thread Scott Blum 
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:11 PM,  wrote:

> So, is that a LGTM as-is, a request to move the now-separate classes
> into static nested ones, or a hold for more discussion?


>From me, and LGTM as-is.  But it's worth kicking a discussion to Amit to see
if we could move them to be static-nested without breaking anyone.

-- 
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors

[gwt-contrib] Re: Refactoring to one top level class per .java file, since some (issue686801)

2010-07-14 Thread jat 

LGTM

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/686801/show

--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors

[gwt-contrib] Re: Refactoring to one top level class per .java file, since some (issue686801)

2010-07-14 Thread fabbott 


http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/686801/diff/1/3
File user/src/com/google/gwt/i18n/tools/ArgHandlerValueChooser.java
(right):

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/686801/diff/1/3#newcode49
user/src/com/google/gwt/i18n/tools/ArgHandlerValueChooser.java:49:
private  Class argValue = Constants.class;
On 2010/07/12 21:14:14, jat wrote:

Extra space.


Done.

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/686801/show

--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors

[gwt-contrib] Re: Refactoring to one top level class per .java file, since some (issue686801)

2010-07-14 Thread fabbott 

So, is that a LGTM as-is, a request to move the now-separate classes
into static nested ones, or a hold for more discussion?


On 2010/07/12 21:19:29, scottb wrote:

Actually, I may have jumped the gun on that.  Making it static nested

will

have an impact on command line callers who are specifying a strategy

on the

command line, I think.  (Separate discussion from whether we should

flog the

responsible parties for polluting the junit package directly.) :)



On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Scott Blum 

wrote:


> +1.  Static nested FTW. :)
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 5:14 PM,  wrote:
>
>> LGTM, though do all the *Strategy ones need to be top-level classes
>> rather than static nested classes?
>>
>>
>>
>> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/686801/show
>>
>> --
>> http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
>>
>
>





http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/686801/show

--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors

Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: Refactoring to one top level class per .java file, since some (issue686801)

2010-07-12 Thread Scott Blum 
Actually, I may have jumped the gun on that.  Making it static nested will
have an impact on command line callers who are specifying a strategy on the
command line, I think.  (Separate discussion from whether we should flog the
responsible parties for polluting the junit package directly.) :)

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Scott Blum  wrote:

> +1.  Static nested FTW. :)
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 5:14 PM,  wrote:
>
>> LGTM, though do all the *Strategy ones need to be top-level classes
>> rather than static nested classes?
>>
>>
>>
>> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/686801/show
>>
>> --
>> http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
>>
>
>

-- 
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors

Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: Refactoring to one top level class per .java file, since some (issue686801)

2010-07-12 Thread Scott Blum 
+1.  Static nested FTW. :)

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 5:14 PM,  wrote:

> LGTM, though do all the *Strategy ones need to be top-level classes
> rather than static nested classes?
>
>
>
> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/686801/show
>
> --
> http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
>

-- 
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors

[gwt-contrib] Re: Refactoring to one top level class per .java file, since some (issue686801)

2010-07-12 Thread jat 


http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/686801/diff/1/3
File user/src/com/google/gwt/i18n/tools/ArgHandlerValueChooser.java
(right):

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/686801/diff/1/3#newcode49
user/src/com/google/gwt/i18n/tools/ArgHandlerValueChooser.java:49:
private  Class argValue = Constants.class;
Extra space.

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/686801/show

--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors

[gwt-contrib] Re: Refactoring to one top level class per .java file, since some (issue686801)

2010-07-12 Thread jat 

LGTM, though do all the *Strategy ones need to be top-level classes
rather than static nested classes?


http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/686801/show

--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors