I did a very-very simplified layout system based on
top,bottom,left,right,width and height CSS attributes:
http://69.20.122.77:8880/gwt-layout/
So far SimpleLayout, HBoxLayout VBoxLayout are implemented.
Source files: http://69.20.122.77:8880/gwt-layout/org.gwt20.mosaic.demo.tbz2
The
I'd like to save first time visitors that roundtrip to fetch
nocache.js. Instead I've declared the module HTML page as non-
cacheable (works nice thanks to E-Tag) and moved images and GWT-
compiler output to a fully cacheable directory.
After inlining nocache.js into the module HTML I had to
Hi,
As for the question on adding another permutations... I think that
adding an ie7 permutation might be not necesarry. I posted a small
example on how I handle ie6/7(or 8 in ie7 mode) in my application...
it just means a small extra indirection but the cost is very low. It's
not like we
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Benjamin Lermangoogle+goo...@ambre.net wrote:
Hi,
As for the question on adding another permutations... I think that
adding an ie7 permutation might be not necesarry. I posted a small
example on how I handle ie6/7(or 8 in ie7 mode) in my application...
it
Just to keep LayoutPanel class simple with only the required methods
added to AbsolutePanel widget:
http://pastebin.com/m7fc7deb0
I agree, LayoutData should for that purpose. Something like:
LayoutPanel.add(Widget w, LayoutData data) should replace
AbsolutePanel.add().
On Aug 7, 10:42 am,
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:51 AM, George Georgovassilis
g.georgovassi...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to save first time visitors that roundtrip to fetch
nocache.js. Instead I've declared the module HTML page as non-
cacheable (works nice thanks to E-Tag) and moved images and GWT-
compiler
Revision: 5912
Author: j...@google.com
Date: Fri Aug 7 04:32:01 2009
Log: Left out part of r5911.
Patch by: jat
Review by: amitmanjhi (TBR)
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=5912
Modified:
/trunk/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/shell/BrowserWidget.java
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:57 AM, Benjamin Lerman
google+goo...@ambre.netgoogle%2bgoo...@ambre.net
wrote:
When 2 permutations are very close to one another (a lot of deferred
binding will lead to the same implementation for the 2 permutations),
dynamic selection through indirection might not
Revision: 5913
Author: jlaba...@google.com
Date: Fri Aug 7 04:58:23 2009
Log: Disabling showOutput for the junit ant target because its too spammy
for now.
Patch by: jlabanca
Review by: rjrjr (TBR)
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=5913
Modified:
I'd be keen to see this land in trunk !
Cam
2009/8/7 John Tamplin j...@google.com
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:51 AM, George Georgovassilis
g.georgovassi...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to save first time visitors that roundtrip to fetch
nocache.js. Instead I've declared the module HTML page as
I'd love to see this in the trunk too. We have only 2 round trips on
start up now, thanks to ClientBundle. Getting it down to one will be
very slick!
--
Arthur Kalmenson
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Cameron Braidcame...@braid.com.au wrote:
I'd be keen to see this land in trunk !
Cam
On 2009/08/07 13:56:08, jlabanca wrote:
So there's one problem here: The GWT class is in the Core module, which
doesn't (and shouldn't) depend upon the UserAgent module. I think that
to get this right, we'll need to do one of the following things:
- Add this code to some class in User. Not my
Reviewers: jgw,
Description:
Sometimes its nice to now the user agent property at runtime to do
runtime checks. This patch adds a method to GWT to get the user agent
property.
I verified that the return value is correct on all browsers.
Please review this at
I say where's the unit test?
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 7:14 AM, j...@google.com wrote:
On 2009/08/07 13:56:08, jlabanca wrote:
So there's one problem here: The GWT class is in the Core module, which
doesn't (and shouldn't) depend upon the UserAgent module. I think that
to get this right,
Let me play devil's advocate, at least against the idea of returning the
string directly. I fear that making this value easily accessible will
encourage people to write conditional tests all over the place, which is
brittle (i.e. because we're very subtly locked into particular user.agent
values)
2 requests is very impressive, Arthur! This is the sort of conscientiousness
(i.e. for optimizing user experience) I hope all GWT developers would strive
for. Nice work.
And yes, we'd like to help you get that down to 1, too.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Arthur Kalmenson
Okay, I recently wrote a test for runAsync lightweight metrics, but --
oops -- that test fails in draft mode. In draft mode, no code
splitting happens, so no events are generated, and so the test
rightfully complains. So, what should be done?
I'm thinking to have draft mode generate some
It seems like there are a lot of issues with this, and a lot of
complementary methods and classes to consider. I only wanted this to modify
as part of a junit patch I'm working on, so I'll just modify the existing
GWTRunnerGenerator to put the user.agent property into the generated
GWTRunner
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Lex Spoonsp...@google.com wrote:
Okay, I recently wrote a test for runAsync lightweight metrics, but --
oops -- that test fails in draft mode. In draft mode, no code
splitting happens, so no events are generated, and so the test
rightfully complains. So,
There's a related issue for ClassObjectTest. It is sensitive to
whether or not the compiler is in -XdisableClassMetadata mode.
I've wanted to add some kind of build information to the
GeneratorContext that would allow Generators to get the command-line
flags so generators can be sensitive to
+1
On Aug 8, 8:43 am, Arthur Kalmenson arthur.k...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd love to see this in the trunk too. We have only 2 round trips on
start up now, thanks to ClientBundle. Getting it down to one will be
very slick!
--
Arthur Kalmenson
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Cameron
This thread seems related to the one that Lex just started, that you
have user code which depends upon how the module was built.
--
Bob Vawter
Google Web Toolkit Team
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Are you counting fetching the host HTML page? With this approach, the
selection script is done away with but you still have a fetch for the
compiled script so that it can remain permanently cacheable. You could
theoretically inline it into the host page, but since none of that is
cacheable
Revision: 5914
Author: fabb...@google.com
Date: Fri Aug 7 08:50:02 2009
Log: Removing extraneous file.
TBR: rjrjr
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=5914
Deleted:
/trunk/user/src/com/google/gwt/uibinder/testing/BUILD
===
---
The best you can do for a cold cache is 2 round-trips (including the host
page) if you inline the selection script (.nocache.js) in the host page. You
definitely do want the compiled script (.cache.html) *not* embedded in the
host page, so that it can have cache forever semantics. Then, when users
JUnit 4 has @Theory and @Assumption annotations that might help here.
I forget which does what, but one of them (probably @Assumption) can
say I believe X is true and it needs to be for my tests to pass, so
ignore these if it's false. If there was some way to expose a
predicate that was true
I've always been meaning to use it myself, so I just tried it and here's
what appears to be the most useful thing you can do as an API or GWT
developer:
1. Refactor your library using Eclipse
2. Review your history at any time with Refactor - History
3. Package your refactorings
- I did this via
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Arthur Kalmenson arthur.k...@gmail.comwrote:
I don't think firebug counts the initial request to fetch the host
page, so two requests. One for the nocache.js and another for the
cachable HTML. With the inlining of the nocache.js file, you could get
it down to
All,
There has been a fair amount of discussion about the 1.6 HandlerManager and
related code, along with a few issues submitted (primarily by Ed), and I'm
starting this thread to try and reach some kind of consensus on what, if
anything, needs to be changed about it. Please note that we need to
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Bruce Johnsonbr...@google.com wrote:
I would go back and push on your dismissal of option #2: tests that really
do only run in certain modes. I think we're going to have to embrace that on
many different levels, and perhaps we simply need to come up with better
I just updated issue 3588 with the results of this discussion. Thanks,
everyone.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Matt Mastracci matt...@mastracci.comwrote:
On 6-Aug-09, at 12:04 PM, Joel Webber wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Joel Webber j...@google.com wrote:
Side note: God, I
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Lex Spoon sp...@google.com wrote:
One place I would quibble about is compiler transforms that we
consider to be optimizations, because an optimization should preserve
behavior. Thus, a test case should not have any easy way to be
sensitive to the choice.
It costs me a bit to go back in time as these issues are already from
some time back..
Let me try to give some input on these points.
2) I don't fully understand what the problem is here. Could you give
an example that shows that it breaks?
Anyway, let me explain a bit how my handlermanager
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote:
The sorts of compiler optimizations tests I was referring to were
to-be-written tests of complex optimizations where the whole point of the
test is to ensure the compiler is doing exactly the transform we intend it
to. IOW,
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Bruce Johnsonbr...@google.com wrote:
I think assumeThat() might indeed be a good general solution, along the
lines of your examples. It subsumes the annotations I proposed, and it's
nice that it could be generalized easily to any sort of tests. Also, it
This occurred to me also when I started cutting down the requests: you
cannot do the initial selection on the server as HTTP proxies will
then see only one permutation: the first one that is ever retrieved by
them.
I've reduced the total number of HTTP requests required to load to
just 2 (1 for
George,
This is nice, and I can't think of any reason why it couldn't use the Layout
class I just checked in. In particular, this code won't work on IE6 because
its left/right/top/bottom CSS implementation is hopelessly broken.
Looking over this, it does remind me why I'm a little uncomfortable
Nevermind, solved my RPC-woes by copying the policy file to the web-
app root. Ugly, but down to 2 requests.
On Aug 7, 8:50 pm, George Georgovassilis g.georgovassi...@gmail.com
wrote:
This occurred to me also when I started cutting down the requests: you
cannot do the initial selection on the
Revision: 5915
Author: amitman...@google.com
Date: Fri Aug 7 12:30:40 2009
Log: Reverting c5897, which itself was reverting c5889. In short,
re-introducing
c5889.
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=5915
Deleted:
/tools/lib/xerces/serializer-2.7.1.jar
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 2:50 PM, George Georgovassilis
g.georgovassi...@gmail.com wrote:
This occurred to me also when I started cutting down the requests: you
cannot do the initial selection on the server as HTTP proxies will
then see only one permutation: the first one that is ever
Reviewed the common, ie, and webkit code. LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/51834/diff/1/11
File plugins/common/ChooseTransportMessage.cpp (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/51834/diff/1/11#newcode31
Line 31: * Receive an FatalError message from the channel (note that the
Reviewers: Lex, scottb,
Description:
The globalTemp used for prototype setup ends up being assigned a large
identifier in some obfuscated programs. In Showcase, it is atleast 3
characters. Reserving the _ for this variable leads to a 3%
compressed savings, and 6% uncompressed savings.
Please
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Ed post2edb...@hotmail.com wrote:
It costs me a bit to go back in time as these issues are already from
some time back..
Let me try to give some input on these points.
2) I don't fully understand what the problem is here. Could you give
an example that shows
Joel,
this is a very simplified layout system based on:
top,bottom,left,right and size CCS attributes. It mimics somehow the
existing layout system in gwt-mosaic except of the LayoutData class
(layout constraints) which is missing from this implementation. And as
you already know it works only
Reviewers: scottb,
Description:
This patch sets the cache-related headers properly, similarly to how the
embedded Tomcat did.
This is derived from code in my production Jetty server (the default
case is different of course) at home that has been running for a couple
of years.
Please review
class HandlerManagerSource { ... }
Interesting how you put Generics in the HandlerManager
Of course this is a no go area as you explained.
Try my HandlerManager scenario like I described above; only the event
contains the actual source generics, and of course not he
HandlerManager...
LGTM, but we should probably get a thumbs-up from at least one other
interested person.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/56807
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Thanks for the review.
Are there instructions somewhere for building the IE and WebKit plugins?
I have MSVC setup in VMWare, but I don't have Xcode setup on my MBP.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/51834/diff/1/11
File plugins/common/ChooseTransportMessage.cpp (right):
Are there lots of folks on the list that have the same sorts of feedback on
HandlerManager? I ask because, as a fly on the wall here, this conversation
doesn't sound like it's converging, and I'd like to declare this thread dead
for now so that we can move onto other things. We have a lot of other
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 4:46 PM, sco...@google.com wrote:
LGTM, but we should probably get a thumbs-up from at least one other
interested person.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/56807
Suggestion of that person?
--
John A. Tamplin
Software Engineer (GWT), Google
Then I would declare it dead Bruce!
With all do respect: I do very complex things with GWT and do walk on
his boundaries...
And to my experience - I am a bit lonely out here... (yes I know
it sounds a bit arrogant...)
And yes, I agree that you guys have better things to do to make GWT
first
Dead! (for now)
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Ed post2edb...@hotmail.com wrote:
Then I would declare it dead Bruce!
With all do respect: I do very complex things with GWT and do walk on
his boundaries...
And to my experience - I am a bit lonely out here... (yes I know
it sounds a
Revision: 5918
Author: rj...@google.com
Date: Fri Aug 7 14:28:38 2009
Log: Creating special snapshot branch for introduction of instant hosted
mode.
Note that this is a branch off of snapshot-2009.08.04-r5888, not trunk
svn copy \
Revision: 5920
Author: rj...@google.com
Date: Fri Aug 7 14:47:13 2009
Log: Adjust branchinfo.txt for this new branch
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=5920
Modified:
/branches/snapshot-2009.08.04-ihm-r5888/branch-info.txt
===
---
Revision: 5921
Author: rj...@google.com
Date: Fri Aug 7 15:17:40 2009
Log: Merging in OOPHM wire protocol change
(http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/51835),
c5911 and followup c5912
svn merge -r5910:5912 https://google-web-toolkit.googlecode.com/svn/trunk .
Bob? Kelly?
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 4:56 PM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 4:46 PM, sco...@google.com wrote:
LGTM, but we should probably get a thumbs-up from at least one other
interested person.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/56807
Suggestion of that
Reviewers: cromwellian_google.com, Lex, bruce,
Description:
Creates some test infrastructure to easily test individual compiler
passes.
Also started some very basic tests for ControlFlowAnalyzer,
ExpressionAnalyzer, and DeadCodeElimination.
Hopefully this will start the process of fixing
Revision: 5922
Author: amitman...@google.com
Date: Fri Aug 7 15:52:15 2009
Log: Re-introduces c5892 that rolled htmlunit dependencies in gwt_dev_jar
and
updated user/build.xml accordingly
Patch by: amitmanjhi
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=5922
Modified:
Revision: 5923
Author: rj...@google.com
Date: Fri Aug 7 16:05:37 2009
Log: Merging in HTMLUnit changes from trunk, c5916, c5917, c5919,
c5922. These are all the trunk changes in this range, so a single
merge command sufficed:
svn merge -r5915:5922
Hey all,
We've been working on a number of RPC enhancements locally and thought
that it might be helpful to open-source some of them (prompted by a
recent suggestion from Ray Cromwell). I've created a new Google Code
project that encapsulates them here:
60 matches
Mail list logo
