[gwt-contrib] Re: move SOYC source code underneath dev/core/src

2009-08-12 Thread spoon 

Thanks, Freeland!

You're right that the diff doesn't include the file adds.  Here is the
output from "svn status" , which shows where the add is supposed to be
be:

D  tools/soyc-vis/src/com/google/gwt/soyc
D  tools/soyc-vis/src/com/google/gwt/soyc/Settings.java
D  tools/soyc-vis/src/com/google/gwt/soyc/SoycDashboard.java
D  tools/soyc-vis/src/com/google/gwt/soyc/CodeCollection.java
D  tools/soyc-vis/src/com/google/gwt/soyc/GlobalInformation.java
D  tools/soyc-vis/src/com/google/gwt/soyc/SizeBreakdown.java
D
tools/soyc-vis/src/com/google/gwt/soyc/MakeTopLevelHtmlForPerm.java
D  tools/soyc-vis/src/com/google/gwt/soyc/LiteralsCollection.java
M  tools/soyc-vis/build.xml
M  common.ant.xml
A  +   dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/soyc
M  dev/common.ant.xml


I did a single "svn mv" for that part.

I'll look into making the changes you describe.



http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/56811/diff/1/10
File dev/common.ant.xml (right):

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/56811/diff/1/10#newcode33
Line 33: 
Oh, I missed the out of date!  Yes, will do.

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/56811/diff/1/10#newcode55
Line 55: 
Yes, but only temporarily.  It's a problem of sequencing all the
outstanding patches.

To get the files moved, the associated Java code also needs updating.  I
have written one patch that moves the files, but that patch is currently
blocked on this one.

How bad does it look to have the files be package-less?  Now that I
think about it, it wouldn't be that big of a deal to tease out the
file-moving change on its own, and put that one first.

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/56811/diff/1/9
File tools/soyc-vis/build.xml (right):

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/56811/diff/1/9#newcode17
Line 17: 
Okay, I'll remove it.

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/56811/diff/1/9#newcode30
Line 30: holding all the SOYC bits.  -->
On 2009/08/12 17:40:13, fabbott wrote:
> The intent is that this jar should have only the images, right?

> (a) if so, should it have a Main-Class attribute at all?

No -- good catch.

> (b) it may be simpler/faster to just use  rather than 
here... the
> difference if small, but I'd rather be vanilla if there's no reason we
need
> jar.bydate.

Will do.

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/56811

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

[gwt-contrib] Re: move SOYC source code underneath dev/core/src

2009-08-12 Thread fabbott 

I see removal of code from the old location here; shouldn't I also see
addition at the new?  ('Cause I don't.)



http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/56811/diff/1/10
File dev/common.ant.xml (right):

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/56811/diff/1/10#newcode33
Line 33: 
You probably want a fileset from ${gwt.tools.soyc} here, so that e.g. an
edit to the classLevel.css triggers a repackage.

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/56811/diff/1/10#newcode55
Line 55: 
These three want not to have any package location?

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/56811/diff/1/9
File tools/soyc-vis/build.xml (right):

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/56811/diff/1/9#newcode17
Line 17: 
Given the  that follows, this one is superfluous.

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/56811/diff/1/9#newcode30
Line 30: holding all the SOYC bits.  -->
The intent is that this jar should have only the images, right?

(a) if so, should it have a Main-Class attribute at all?
(b) it may be simpler/faster to just use  rather than 
here... the difference if small, but I'd rather be vanilla if there's no
reason we need jar.bydate.

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/56811

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