I also reported a feature request a long time ago that might be addressed
with the proposed change.
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=1275
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Mat Gessel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excellent write up John.
+1 for the more accessible
It is definitely something that we would consider. Of course, the first step
would be to get some good alternative month selectors into the
gwt-incubator...
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Arthur Kalmenson [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Hi John,
Thank you for the reply. Are there any plans in the
setTransientEnabledOnVisibleDates seems a bit awkward. What if we removed
the VisibleDates from the name instead? So we'd have:
setTransientEnabled
addTransientStyleToDates
etc.
Why do we want people to be able to remove date styles that do not exist
without getting an assertion
Based on the all positive responses and use cases, adding a
PreviewEventHandler sounds like a great addition. Since the new
PreviewEventHandler would not be stack based, you'll be able to have
multiple PreviewEventHandlers at the same time. I'll start working on a
patch immediately.
Thanks,
Also, you might want to turn your javadoc warnings on in your IDE, as I
notice that there are a lot of missing javadoc tags.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Emily Crutcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
setTransientEnabledOnVisibleDates seems a bit awkward. What if we
removed the VisibleDates
I wrote a MonthSelector a while back that uses DropDownListBoxes for
month and year. I can fix it up to be compatible with recent changes
and add it to the incubator. I'll see if I can fit that in tonight.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Emily Crutcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is definitely
That sounds great, thanks.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Isaac Truett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wrote a MonthSelector a while back that uses DropDownListBoxes for
month and year. I can fix it up to be compatible with recent changes
and add it to the incubator. I'll see if I can fit that
The attached patch against the 1.6 branch adds
EmittedArtifact.getLastModified() which is used to set the mtime on
files written to disk by the compiler. This resolves issue 2280.
The default implementation in the EmittedArtifact base class is
concrete to avoid breaking changes and always
That would be awesome. We've been meaning to implement it ourselves
for some time but haven't had the chance. I'll be very interested in
using it. Thanks!
--
Arthur Kalmenson
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Isaac Truett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wrote a MonthSelector a while back that
[google-web-toolkit] [EMAIL PROTECTED] commented on revision r4248.
Details are at
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=4248
Score: Negative
General Comment:
I like the display improvements, but the tests need work. See below.
Line-by-line comments:
File:
I can take this review.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:56 AM, BobV [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The attached patch against the 1.6 branch adds
EmittedArtifact.getLastModified() which is used to set the mtime on
files written to disk by the compiler. This resolves issue 2280.
The default
There is already a static Event.addEventPreview() that delegates through to
DOM.addEventPreview() (the idea being that the static DOM methods could be
removed eventually). The static event triggering methods are also going on
Event and following this pattern.
+1, btw, to this whole idea. The
Could you create a in issue for this problem here:
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/issues/entry
Thanks!
Emily
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Revv [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: In IE, even simple shape(meaning very short path
string) drawn with
Looks great, I went ahead and committed at r4250. I actually tweaked
StandardGeneratedResource such that the constructor takes a File instead of
a URL, which simplifies the calling code and allows a simple
file.lastModified() implementation. Please make sure my tweak is sane.
On Thu, Dec 4,
Make that r4250 + r4251; I forgot to commit the calling code in
StandardGeneratorContext.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Scott Blum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looks great, I went ahead and committed at r4250. I actually tweaked
StandardGeneratedResource such that the constructor takes a File
Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Dec 4 10:46:41 2008
New Revision: 4251
Modified:
releases/1.6/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/shell/StandardGeneratorContext.java
Log:
Should have been part of r4250.
Modified:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Scott Blum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Make that r4250 + r4251; I forgot to commit the calling code in
StandardGeneratorContext.
LGTM
--
Bob Vawter
Google Web Toolkit Team
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Dec 4 10:56:16 2008
New Revision: 4252
Modified:
releases/1.6/user/super/com/google/gwt/emul/java/lang/Deprecated.java
Log:
Fixed wrong URL.
Issue: #1552
Modified:
releases/1.6/user/super/com/google/gwt/emul/java/lang/Deprecated.java
Does anyone volunteer to support the ProgressBar widget in gwt-incubator?
Thanks!
Emily
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand
binary, and those who don't
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
[google-web-toolkit] ray.ryan commented on revision r4249.
Details are at
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=4249
Score: Positive
General Comment:
Looks good. Can you write a junit test that implements and exercises one of
the HasFooHandler interfaces to confirm
[google-web-toolkit] [EMAIL PROTECTED] commented on revision r4249.
Details are at
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=4249
General Comment:
Sorry, I don't quite understand, what is the use case to extend a
Has*Handlers interface?
Respond to these comments at
[google-web-toolkit] [EMAIL PROTECTED] commented on revision r4249.
Details are at
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=4249
General Comment:
(Oops, back to my Google self.)
Imagine you have a controller that owns a few HasValuelt;Stringgt;
instances. It should be
[google-web-toolkit] [EMAIL PROTECTED] commented on revision r4249.
Details are at
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=4249
General Comment:
Yep, can add a specific check for HasValue to our LogicalEventsTest which
currently does the checking to ensure all our logical
Sorry this took so long. Hard to let go of the get rid of those asserts
urge, but no time to do it right.
rjrjr
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=4253
Get VisibleDate verbiage out of method names.
TBR: ecc
submitter: rjrjr
Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Dec 4 10:44:43 2008
New Revision: 4250
Modified:
releases/1.6/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/linker/EmittedArtifact.java
releases/1.6/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/linker/SyntheticArtifact.java
Would it make sense to group fragment files under a subdir whose name is the
strong name of the startup script?
A40BE3F0/
A40BE3F0-001.cache.js
A40BE3F0-002.cache.js
A40BE3F0-003.cache.js
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 4:26 PM, John Tamplin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at
Feel free to see the attached patch in progress. I need to add unit tests
and do some testing, but this is a good chance for people to offer their
opinions.
Thanks,
John LaBanca
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Joel Webber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is already a static
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Bruce Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it make sense to group fragment files under a subdir whose name is the
strong name of the startup script?
A40BE3F0/
A40BE3F0-001.cache.js
A40BE3F0-002.cache.js
A40BE3F0-003.cache.js
Okay, that's two
Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Dec 4 14:14:39 2008
New Revision: 4254
Modified:
releases/1.6/user/src/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/Accessibility.java
releases/1.6/user/src/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/CustomButton.java
Log:
For issue 3048, make toggle buttons (and other custom
[google-web-toolkit] [EMAIL PROTECTED] commented on revision r4255.
Details are at
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=4255
General Comment:
Nice additions to the test. One nit on CalendarUtil
Line-by-line comments:
File:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Bruce Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it make sense to group fragment files under a subdir whose name is
the strong name of the startup script?
A40BE3F0/
A40BE3F0-001.cache.js
A40BE3F0-002.cache.js
A40BE3F0-003.cache.js
These strings
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:03 PM, John Tamplin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Bruce Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it make sense to group fragment files under a subdir whose name is
the strong name of the startup script?
A40BE3F0/
A40BE3F0-001.cache.js
What about:
A40BE3F0/
001.cache.js
002.cache.js
003.cache.js
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 6:03 PM, John Tamplin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Bruce Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it make sense to group fragment files under a subdir whose name is
the
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Bruce Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about:
A40BE3F0/
001.cache.js
002.cache.js
003.cache.js
That's what I was thinking you really meant. -Lex
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Last one looks good to me, although the directory names personally
don't bother me too much as I view them as hidden non-user visible
URLs. If shortness is actually a major requirement, might I suggest
moving to modified base64 encoded strongnames, as that would collapse
the length of the
OK, done! Check it here:
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/issues/detail?id=204
On Dec 5, 2:27 am, Emily Crutcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you create a in issue for this problem here:
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/issues/entry
Thanks!
Yep, sounds right, thanks!
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Isaac Truett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On second thought, gwt-incubator is supposed to compile against trunk,
isn't it? Well, since this is written to compile against the
1_6_datepicker branch, I'll hold off committing until that
Also, the code should be reviewed before committing. I'll be happy to be
your reviewer once we land the 1.6 datepicker + release the 1.5 final
gwt-incubator drop. As until then, we cannot add 1.6 specific code to
gwt-incubator.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:05 AM, Emily Crutcher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emily,
My requirements are much simpeler, I just need a way to get notified of all
events that happens in GWT.
When I notice no more mouse or keyboard events, I have to popup a modal
dialog that blocks the UI.
Since GWT already effectively has one method that gets called to dispatch
the actual
39 matches
Mail list logo
