The attached patch adds the capability of inspecting and changing both
the serialized and deserialized contents of requests and responses
(including intercepting exceptions before they're sent to the client). This
opens all kinds of possibilities if properly used - monitoring the type and
amount
Author: j...@google.com
Date: Mon Jan 5 14:15:04 2009
New Revision: 4378
Modified:
trunk/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/shell/CompilingClassLoader.java
Log:
Fix OOPHM breakage from latest merge.
Patch by: sgross
Review by: jat
Modified:
trunk/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/shell/Comp
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Sam Gross wrote:
> The last merge from releases/1.6 into trunk (r4367) introduced a
> LinkageError in OOPHM. A call to injectJsniFor, which was removed
> during the OOPHM merge (r4201) reappeared in
> CompilingClassLoader#findClassBytes.
>
> Removing the call from
The gwt-dev-*.jar files include a lot of code that GWT depends on but
that should not be directly used by clients of GWT. This can cause
issues for any application that both tries to run the GWT compiler and
also has its own copy of one of these dependencies.
One way to help is to use jarjar to
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1401
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Hi John --
The last merge from releases/1.6 into trunk (r4367) introduced a
LinkageError in OOPHM. A call to injectJsniFor, which was removed
during the OOPHM merge (r4201) reappeared in
CompilingClassLoader#findClassBytes.
Removing the call from the trunk version of CompilingClassLoader fixes
t
Author: jlaba...@google.com
Date: Mon Jan 5 11:25:31 2009
New Revision: 4377
Modified:
releases/1.6/user/src/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/Widget.java
Log:
Corrected the JavaDoc of Widget#doAttach/DetachChildren() to reflect its
actual usage. The old comment stated that all implementors
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Freeland Abbott wrote:
> I waffled around OOPHM, but decided I shouldn't add it yet.
>
There isn't anything for OOPHM in user, so I am not sure what would be
documented for it.
--
John A. Tamplin
Software Engineer (GWT), Google
--~--~-~--~~
I'd rather have a blacklist (with regexp matches for e.g. .impl packages),
personally... but yes, it can be done; no, it's not entirely trivial.
Javadoc itself will let you explicitly list packages, list root packages
with recursive descent, or list files. There's no exclusion, so we'd have
to do
Can we automatically include all shared and client (excluding impl)
packages instead of manually listing them out? It seems like that may be
less of a maintenance headache at least for the user package organization.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Freeland Abbott wrote:
> Two semantically-eq
Two semantically-equivalent patches attached: I think we want the following
new packages in the user javadoc set, but they weren't there.
- com.google.gwt.event.dom.client
- com.google.gwt.event.logical.shared
- com.google.gwt.event.shared
- com.google.gwt.debug.client
- com.google.
Author: jlaba...@google.com
Date: Mon Jan 5 08:04:11 2009
New Revision: 4376
Modified:
releases/1.6/reference/code-museum/src/com/google/gwt/museum/client/defaultmuseum/VisualsForTree.java
releases/1.6/user/src/com/google/gwt/user/theme/chrome/public/gwt/chrome/chrome.css
relea
Comment by e...@google.com:
Cyril,
Can you enter an issue report with some sample code
here(http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/entry)? Feel free
to e-mail me the issue number directly after you are done, as any memory
leak you can create with just a tab panel + widgets wit
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:16 AM, dflorey wrote:
>
> btw: Why is the datepicker in a separate package and why is this
> package not located under user/client/ui?
> It looks very strange to me that the datepicker package is currently
> on the same level as server, theme and tools...
>
For new large
Thanks!
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 12:37 PM, dflorey wrote:
>
> Hi Emily,
> Happy new year to all of you! I've been suffering from a real-world
> virus but hope to fully recover soon...
> I just upgraded my branch to the latest revision and tried to have a
> look at your port. The actual TimePicker
Comment by cyril.lakech:
Hi, Same problem here, big memory leaks with GWT on IE6 but NOT on
firefox/opera etc.
I saw memory increasing on IE6 when closing a tab and when I opened it
again and again... each time I reopen a tab (a tab with many widgets
inside) I see the memory increasing onl
Comment by cyril.lakech:
Hi, Same problem here, big memory leaks with GWT on IE6 but NOT on
firefox/opera etc.
I saw memory increasing on IE6 when closing a tab and when I opened it
again and again... each time I reopen a tab (a tab with many widgets
inside) I see the memory increasing onl
I've created an issue and uploaded a patch for the DateBox:
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=3243
On 5 Jan., 11:16, dflorey wrote:
> btw: Why is the datepicker in a separate package and why is this
> package not located under user/client/ui?
> It looks very strange t
btw: Why is the datepicker in a separate package and why is this
package not located under user/client/ui?
It looks very strange to me that the datepicker package is currently
on the same level as server, theme and tools...
On 4 Jan., 18:37, dflorey wrote:
> Hi Emily,
> Happy new year to all of
19 matches
Mail list logo
