Revision: 6210
Author: j...@google.com
Date: Fri Sep 25 06:49:07 2009
Log: Fix the Showcase launch config after the Eclipse gwt-dev project was
changed.
Patch by: jat
Review by: amitmanjhi (TBR)
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=6210
Modified:
If you override JUnitShell.Strategy, you should consider this email.
JUnitShell.Strategy, which determines how GWT modules are compiled for test
cases, is currently an interface. We would like to change it to be a class
so we can add methods without breaking code. This is a relatively obscure
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 8:52 AM, b...@vawter.org wrote:
What's the de-facto version of Eclipse that's canonical for formatting?
Good question, I have an 3.3 based Eclipse that's probably out of date now,
and should probably update. But I was talking less about the particular
settings, and
Please forward this to GWT announce, and cc skybrian
On Friday, September 25, 2009, John LaBanca jlaba...@google.com wrote:
If you override JUnitShell.Strategy, you should consider this email.
JUnitShell.Strategy,
which determines how GWT modules are compiled for test cases, is
currently
Good question, I have an 3.3 based Eclipse that's probably out of date now,
and should probably update. But I was talking less about the particular
settings, and more meant to suggest committing the reformat separately so as
to make clear the syntactic vs. semantic change in the history.
Patch courtesy of pmuetschard.
We propose adding the annotation @WithModuleParameters to specify deferred
binding properties on specific test methods, as per this patch:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/71801/show
For a specific example, see the test file in the patch:
Looks convenient, but I have a few questions/comments.
1) What happens if the module returned by getModuleName() already specifies
a fix value for a given property? More generally, how should one think about
how these annotations dovetail with the settings in the module config?
2) The
LGTM then.
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 12:09 PM, BobV b...@google.com wrote:
Good question, I have an 3.3 based Eclipse that's probably out of date
now,
and should probably update. But I was talking less about the particular
settings, and more meant to suggest committing the reformat
Revision: 6211
Author: kpro...@google.com
Date: Fri Sep 25 09:27:51 2009
Log: Changes to Showcase to make it crawlable.
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=6211
Added:
/branches/crawlability/samples/showcase/src/com/google/gwt/sample/showcase/server
Revision: 6212
Author: kpro...@google.com
Date: Fri Sep 25 09:28:36 2009
Log: Changes to History and Hyperlink to enable crawlability.
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=6212
Modified:
/branches/crawlability/user/src/com/google/gwt/user/client/History.java
John, I'm kind of puzzled... how would a user actually override
getStrategy()? The Strategy type is not compilable GWT client code, so a
GWTTestCase that actually does the override should fail to compile as GWT
client code. What am I missing?
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 11:33 AM, John LaBanca
LGTM. Why use a TreeMap in RemoteObjectTable?
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 4:26 PM, j...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: amitmanjhi,
Description:
This corrects an issue that was there before and implements it on the
client side of BrowserChannel, as needed by HtmlUnit in hosted mode.
Please
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Amit Manjhi amitman...@google.com wrote:
LGTM. Why use a TreeMap in RemoteObjectTable?
I basically kept the same thing that Bob had there before, just moved it
from ThreadLocals to an isolated synchronized class. I don't see any reason
it needs to be ordered,
Yes.
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:35 AM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Amit Manjhi amitman...@google.comwrote:
LGTM. Why use a TreeMap in RemoteObjectTable?
I basically kept the same thing that Bob had there before, just moved it
from ThreadLocals to
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Pascal Muetschard
pmuetsch...@google.comwrote:
1) What happens if the module returned by getModuleName() already specifies
a fix value for a given property? More generally, how should one think about
how these annotations dovetail with the settings in the
I'll help Pascal with the changes, but it might be good to get a few more
comments before changing too much. It *might *not be trivial for Benchmark
to subclass the new Strategy because it does its own thing as well, but it
shouldn't be too difficult.
I agree that the annotation should override
Revision: 6213
Author: j...@google.com
Date: Fri Sep 25 10:52:39 2009
Log: Remove extra lines that got added while removing SWT.
Patch by: jat
Review by: amitmanjhi (TBR)
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=6213
Modified:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:51 PM, John LaBanca jlaba...@google.com wrote:
I vote for @WithBindingProperties for the annotation name.
Is that a vote that we should start using the term binding properties in
general?
I think that's not quite the right term (perhaps this should be a separate
Revision: 6214
Author: amitman...@google.com
Date: Fri Sep 25 10:58:07 2009
Log: Made this launch config consistent with trunk (the only difference is
the
reference to gwt-dev instead of gwt-dev-windows) and other samples.
Patch by: amitmanjhi
Review by: jat
@WithClientProperties is fine with me. I thought we used the term binding
somewhere, but creating a DeferredBinding doesn't actual require the use of
the term binding. The gwt.xml files just refer to these as properties.
Thanks,
John LaBanca
jlaba...@google.com
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:57
Revision: 6215
Author: j...@google.com
Date: Fri Sep 25 11:00:02 2009
Log: Fix GC handling for HtmlUnit in development mode.
Patch by: jat
Review by: amitmanjhi
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=6215
Added:
Reviewers: jgw,
Message:
Joel, this is to change the served location of xhtml.ent
after discussion with Andrew
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/72801
Affected files:
M user/src/com/google/gwt/uibinder/rebind/GwtResourceEntityResolver.java
M
Revision: 6216
Author: b...@google.com
Date: Fri Sep 25 11:27:03 2009
Log: Fix compiler and hosted-mode crash caused by virtual overrides in
SingleJsoImpl types.
Patch by: bobv
Review by: scottb
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=6216
Modified:
Committed at r6218.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/67807
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Revision: 6218
Author: b...@google.com
Date: Fri Sep 25 12:26:41 2009
Log: Speed CssResource class selector rewriting.
Patch by: amirkashani, bobv
Review by: bobv, amirkashani
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=6218
Modified:
Reviewers: Ray Ryan,
Description:
As discussed, this does not include any support for snapshot version
numbers, but would be trivial to add.
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/72802
Affected files:
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/About.java
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/72802/diff/1/8
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/cfg/ModuleDef.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/72802/diff/1/8#newcode131
Line 131: public void addLinker(String linkerName) {
Hmm, not sure how these changes got into here. I think this is
Can you look again? One of my unit tests was passing vacuously, and I
also wasn't being strict enough when matching short circuited resource
paths (needed to look for trailing '/' too).
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/72801
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
LGTM
Code looks fine, but I really don't know what these files are doing, so
I can't review the logic.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/72801
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Committed r6219
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
Since the logic hasn't changed, I'll take your LGTM and run with it.
FYI, this is an object we plug in to the XML parser. It gets to turn URLs
into streams. When it sees us serving from the magic url where our
Revision: 6219
Author: rj...@google.com
Date: Fri Sep 25 13:56:23 2009
Log: Changes served location of UiBinder's xhtml.ent from svn to downloads
Also makes match more stringent, and fixes vaccuous test case
Review: jgw, jlabanca
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=6219
John, this seems awfully complicated, and a lot of that complixity is in
support of big public API that as far as I can see is unused.
Is all of this really necessary for us to tell that 2.0.0-rc 2.0.0, or
whatever convention it was that we settled on?
I also don't think this should gate
Revision: 6220
Author: amitman...@google.com
Date: Fri Sep 25 16:33:38 2009
Log: Turning off the batch mode for test.hosted and test.web targets
since batching currently does not honor the @DoNotRunWith annotation.
Patch by: amitmanjhi
Milestone users are savvy, and shouldn't rely on the update mechanism to
know what's going on. We don't need to worry about this case.
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 4:29 PM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009
Comment by matt.smillie:
An alternate approach to background images is not to use `...@sprite`s at all,
but defining them as DataResource and using `...@url` replacement, e.g.:
{{{
class SomeBundle extends ClientBundle {
@Source(/some/tiling/background)
DataResource aTile();
}
--- css
Comment by matt.smillie:
The above also raises a couple of questions:
* would an @tile rule be useful?
* should @url rules work on any class defining getUrl(), i.e., should
ImageResource extend DataResource (or some hypothetical HasURL interface)?
For more information:
Revision: 6221
Author: rj...@google.com
Date: Fri Sep 25 20:31:26 2009
Log: Checkstyle fix, unused import in BrowserChannel.java
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=6221
Modified:
/branches/farewellSwt/dev/oophm/src/com/google/gwt/dev/shell/BrowserChannel.java
37 matches
Mail list logo
