Is J2CL available to the public yet?
This thread is very old and I've seen no news about it...
Thanks,
Norbi
On Saturday, 24 October 2015 00:31:40 UTC+2, Thomas Broyer wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 12:14:17 AM UTC+2, Marko wrote:
>>
>> I see the term "j2cl" comming up in
Looks like GWT follows suit with the jsinterop development.
Still it is good to have things such Collection and Map<> for
compatibility with backend classes. jsweet looks like it provides the same
deal for javascript (instead of java) with its nodejs compatibility.
However my backend (several
... they did it on purpose:
http://www.jsweet.org/comparing-the-gwt-transpiler-and-jsweet/
... a consequence of the simpler approach JSweet takes, is that they
actually shipped and will be able to evolve jsweet much more quickly in
future, IMO
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 3:08:48 AM
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 11:47:58 AM UTC+1, Norbert Sándor wrote:
>
> > Unless you can get a perfect 1:1 mapping to java apis, people are going
> to use a java type, and not get java behavior. That would be Very Bad (tm).
>
> This is what http://www.jsweet.org/ does...
>
AFAICT from
> Unless you can get a perfect 1:1 mapping to java apis, people are going
to use a java type, and not get java behavior. That would be Very Bad (tm).
This is what http://www.jsweet.org/ does...
On Friday, 27 November 2015 23:34:51 UTC+1, James Nelson wrote:
>
> Ok.
>
> So, I have
Ok.
So, I have Map, how do I map that to
goog.structs.Map?
The closure objects do not behave 100% the same as the java objects, and if
you expect your code to do the same thing on every platform (very common,
reasonable expectation), then you can't pick an emulation
Hi James!
The idea would be to use Java Maps/Sets/Lists/etc in your platform
independent code - for web, android, ios. But j2cl would translate this
platform independent code into JavaScript based on Closure Library so that
in runtime JavaScript code would use goog.structs.Map instead of
Marko, even is the closure libs were extended to look like java Map/Set,
that does not replace the need to emulate Map/Set.
Gwt already has its own versions of HashMap and ilk, and even if they could
compile them directly to closure types,
we would STILL need to use the java.util.* apis,
Thank you Thomas for this answer! This is great!
Replacing JRE emulation with Closure Library (java.util.HashMap =>
goog.structs.Map, java.util.Set => goog.structs.Set, etc.) would eliminate
the need for JRE emulation and protect us in case Oracle wins in court. I
guess that in this case
I see the term "j2cl" comming up in several threads connected with GWT 3.0.
What does it mean?
I speculate that this is a "Java-to-Closure-Library" transpiler, which
would be GREAT, because you wouldn't depend on JRE emulation library
anymore and GWT 3.0 would be safe from "Oracle copyright
On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 12:14:17 AM UTC+2, Marko wrote:
>
> I see the term "j2cl" comming up in several threads connected with GWT
> 3.0. What does it mean?
>
> I speculate that this is a "Java-to-Closure-Library" transpiler, which
> would be GREAT, because you wouldn't depend on JRE
11 matches
Mail list logo