Thanks Thomas.
On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 2:33:59 AM UTC+8, Thomas Broyer wrote:
>
> This is actually a known issue with a proposed patch:
> https://gwt-review.googlesource.com/10520
>
> On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 5:04:05 PM UTC+1, Dop Sun wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In previous versions, e.g.
I am working on a site that will result in the same hurdle. Take a look at
Google's solution to this problem:
https://developers.google.com/webmasters/ajax-crawling/docs/getting-started
On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 11:12:43 PM UTC-8, Adolfo Rodriguez wrote:
>
> Hi, I suppose the question has
Checkout com.google.gwt.dev.About and About.properties in the same package.
That is what Eclipse GPE uses to figure out the GWT version of the GWT SDK.
-- J.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google Web Toolkit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group
I'd like to get the GWT version from inside a linker (say the link()
method) which in client code can be done via GWT.getVersionI(), however,
nothing I've tried appears to work. You can't use the client version of
GWT as that leads to a runtime Java exception since the method getVersion()
cann
This is actually a known issue with a proposed
patch: https://gwt-review.googlesource.com/10520
On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 5:04:05 PM UTC+1, Dop Sun wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In previous versions, e.g. 2.6.1, .nocache.js file generated with
> timestamp when the files generated. But in version 2.7.0,
Scheduler.scheduleIncremental() should be independent of any user input
actions. Put some logging statements into your command and watch your
console. I am pretty sure you will see log output even if the user will not
perform any input actions.
-- J.
--
You received this message because you a
>
> The image must not be loaded on every access! I only want to force a
> reload when I change it, not on every request.
>
Cache-Control: public, max-age=0, must-revalidate
is exactly this. "public" means the resource is generally cacheable.
"max-age=0" means that the cached resource will be
Browser: Firefox 25
GWT: 2.5
I'm changing the implementation of a scatterchart I have to update
incrementally to avoid the slow script warning. I've successfully
implemented this using Scheduler.scheduleIncremental. However, there is one
oddity I'd like to better understand: The chart is only u
>
> Ah, thanks. Good to know.
> What about all those little hidden
Hm yeah well that carries some overhead if you don't need access key
support for your focus panels. But if you need access key support then it
is kind of a requirement in most browsers as you normally can not assign an
access
On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 5:06:08 PM UTC+1, Thomas Broyer wrote:
>
> Do you send appropriate HTTP headers to instruct the browser to check for
> changed content? (e.g. Cache-Control: must-revalidate)
>
No, but while retrieving information about these headers I noticed another
requirement:
Ah, thanks. Good to know.
What about all those little hidden http://randomreviewshow.com/index.html
Try it! You might even feel ambivalent about it :)
On 30 December 2014 at 17:03, Jens wrote:
> Generally I think they won't really cost you more performance than using a
> normal panel. FocusPanel
On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 3:51:16 PM UTC+1, Magnus wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> thanks, but then I have to change and redeploy the code. The reason for
> using the symbolic link was to be able to change the image independent of
> the app.
> Is there another solution?
>
Do you send appropriate HTTP h
>
> thanks, but then I have to change and redeploy the code. The reason for
> using the symbolic link was to be able to change the image independent of
> the app.
> Is there another solution?
>
Rename the image to something like bg.nocache.jpg. Your server should
already have a rule configured
Hi,
In previous versions, e.g. 2.6.1, .nocache.js file generated with
timestamp when the files generated. But in version 2.7.0, the
.nocache.js file generated with the same timestamp of
.gwt.xml.
Is this by design?
I'm raising this question because it causes Safari ignores latest compiled
.
Generally I think they won't really cost you more performance than using a
normal panel. FocusPanel just adds a bunch of (delegate) methods you can
call and thats it. If your code never calls them then they are likely to be
removed by the GWT compiler anyways.
-- J.
--
You received this messa
On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 4:32:38 PM UTC+1, darkflame wrote:
>
> It might be possible for GWT to make it easier to "burn out" pages I
> guess, not sure of the precise method or convenience factor it would add.
> Youd still need to somehow get the sever to then send out those static
> html p
Is GWT2.8 set to support IE11 with a specific permutation?
I ask because theres still silly issues in IE like this one;
https://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=9025
Easy to work around so not a big deal specificly, but still crazy something
so basic as retrieving a style p
I made a game engine that used a lot of focus panels on an absolute panel.
- essentially everything on the panel is within a focus panel in case in
needs pointer interaction. The absolute panel they are on is bigger then
the screen and can move.
umm...was this me being an idiot?
If theres a hu
It might be possible for GWT to make it easier to "burn out" pages I guess,
not sure of the precise method or convenience factor it would add.
Youd still need to somehow get the sever to then send out those static html
pages.
Probably need something like the javascript burns a copy of the html,
Hi,
thanks, but then I have to change and redeploy the code. The reason for
using the symbolic link was to be able to change the image independent of
the app.
Is there another solution?
Thanks
Magnus
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google Web Too
This is a known issue, and it has workarounds:
https://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=7538 (note: in
recent GWT versions, you no longer need to create your own linker, there's a
configuration property you can set, have a look at the release notes for
details)
--
You rec
A simple solution is to add a parameter to the URL (ex. ?v=1 or
?), and change the parameter value to force image reload.
The parameter can be ignored by the server side, just used to force the
image reload in the client side.
See
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1431512/is-there-a-way-to-fo
22 matches
Mail list logo
