These caches contain types which have a circular reference pattern
with the
TypeOracle. If we make a hard reference to the cache here, we end up
pinning the
TypeOracle.
You could break hard reference on TypeOracle for example by using weak
reference on method from
Reviewers: cromwellian,
Description:
Introduces ValueListBox, and uses it in Scaffold to pick
employees.
Review by: cromwell...@google.com
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/780802/show
Affected files:
M
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/780802/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Updated ValueListBox with some bug fixes
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/780802/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/776801/diff/8001/9002
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/Permutation.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/776801/diff/8001/9002#newcode3
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/Permutation.java:3: *
On 2010/08/19 01:13:43, scottb wrote:
I see you
Hi,
I found out that using something like addStylename() in an onmouseover
can have really catastrophic effects on performance in IE (6/7 and 8).
In fact IE8 seems to be worse than the older versions. In my
applications the browser locks up for many seconds even minutes
running at 100% CPU.
[+some people who have looked at this problem in the past]
Le 19 août 2010 09:36, stuckagain david.no...@gmail.com a écrit :
Hi,
I found out that using something like addStylename() in an onmouseover
can have really catastrophic effects on performance in IE (6/7 and 8).
In fact IE8 seems to
We haven't built anything like this, but we've definitely seen this problem
before. It doesn't seem unreasonable to be able to extract the text of a
CSSResource rule's properties (a bit unfortunate, since it only affects IE
and would be slower everywhere else -- maybe it would be better to
Hi,
Sorry if I trol this newsgroup too much with my questions, but I asked
this before in the GWT group and this group, but I did it while you
were all busy planning for the GoogleIO days.
I filed an issue for keyboard events not being triggered in IE with
GWT when you click away a popup panel.
Setting the styles directly will still run layout. But It will not run style
matching. This might give you a bit of speed up, but I think you should take
a second look at the way you are styling your application.
The assumption that CssResource won't help might be a little off. Setting
the style
Hi,
In a few situation we have indeed a few rules that match .stylename
TD I'll see if I can get rid of them.
Thanks,
David
On Aug 19, 4:11 pm, Jaime Yap jaime...@google.com wrote:
Setting the styles directly will still run layout. But It will not run style
matching. This might give you a bit
If it is in fact layout and not syle matching that is bogging you down, some
good rules of thumb:
1. Try minimize the use of float when styling elements.
2. Tables that have fixed layout will lay out faster than if left to size
to its contents. But, it may not look like you expect it to :).
3.
I'm just wondering, the idea of this is to display potentially unsafe
HTML we got from the server, right? Is there a way to discourage using
this to sanitizing HTML on the client before sending it to the server?
I can definitely see newer programmers assuming that doing this
sanitization on the
Why do we no longer visit annotation types?
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/775804/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:41 AM, kplatf...@google.com wrote:
Why do we no longer visit annotation types?
We visit annotation types; what we don't visit is annotation elements on
other types. IE, we don't visit the @Override on a method. The reasoning
has to do with how the actual
Please add test cases (or a TODO) for ValueListBox and anything else
that is reasonably stable.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/780802/diff/3001/4002
File
bikeshed/src/com/google/gwt/sample/expenses/gwt/ui/employee/EmployeeEditActivity.java
(right):
Sure, I will add a note about the intended usage in the code.
I will be moving the existing widgets over to SafeHtml soon, and that will,
hopefully, provide some good examples as well.
Philip
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Arthur Kalmenson arthur.k...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm just wondering,
Ah, ok. My question was not phrased correctly, but I was actually
wondering about visiting annotation type *refs*, not the annotation
types themselves. My bad. Anyway, thanks for clearing that up.
On 2010/08/19 15:46:05, scottb wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:41 AM,
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/775804/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/766803/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/766803/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/766803/diff/1/2
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/typeinfo/TypeOracle.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/766803/diff/1/2#newcode499
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/typeinfo/TypeOracle.java:499: *
manage static state.
On
Still need answer on JJS - i18n clear cache.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/766803/diff/1/3
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/CompilationStateBuilder.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/766803/diff/1/3#newcode223
Reviewers: Ray Ryan,
Message:
This patch allows ui.xml files to refer to static fields.
Single fields:
ui:import
field='com.google.gwt.uibinder.test.client.Constants.CONST_FOO'
Wildcard (like import static Inner.*):
ui:import
field='com.google.gwt.uibinder.test.client.Constants.Inner.*'
Another sanity check, still sane. I haven't looked in as much depth as I
should, but I'm not scared.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/767801/diff/14001/2014
File
samples/dynatablerf/src/com/google/gwt/sample/dynatablerf/client/PersonEditorWorkflow.java
(right):
We believe this was fixed at r8572. Can anyone confirm?
On Aug 18, 3:45 pm, Ray Cromwell cromwell...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, there will be a fix for this by COB today.
-Ray
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Pascal Patry i...@invalidip.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 18, 2010 16:41:39 you
On Thursday, August 19, 2010 13:48:53 rjrjr wrote:
We believe this was fixed at r8572. Can anyone confirm?
sure, won't be long.
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/760802/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
On Thursday, August 19, 2010 13:48:53 rjrjr wrote:
We believe this was fixed at r8572. Can anyone confirm?
It fixed the latest issue in Firefox, however, Chrome is still broken.
Stack Trace:
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: invoke arguments: JS value of type int,
expected
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/771801/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
On Thursday, August 19, 2010 14:15:56 Ray Ryan wrote:
Your gwt-servlet jar might be stale, try re-genning it. (ant dist-dev)
I don't think, since I'm usually building as:
ant clean; ant buildonly doc; cd distro-source; ant
It did make a difference by fixing Firefox completely. The problem is
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/771801/diff/25001/26004
File
user/src/com/google/gwt/safehtml/shared/OnlyToBeUsedInGeneratedCodeStringBlessedAsSafeHtml.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/771801/diff/25001/26004#newcode31
Revision: 8574
Author: rda...@google.com
Date: Thu Aug 19 11:34:56 2010
Log: Added dir for the 2.1.0.M3 release.
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=8574
Added:
/2.1.0.M3
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
On 2010/08/19 16:50:01, scottb wrote:
Still need answer on JJS - i18n clear cache.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/766803/diff/1/3
File
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/CompilationStateBuilder.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/766803/diff/1/3#newcode223
Revision: 8575
Author: rda...@google.com
Date: Thu Aug 19 11:47:00 2010
Log: Adding maven repo directories.
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=8575
Added:
/2.1.0.M3/gwt
/2.1.0.M3/gwt/maven
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Revision: 8576
Author: rda...@google.com
Date: Thu Aug 19 11:48:20 2010
Log: Remove improper add of maven directory.
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=8576
Deleted:
/2.1.0.M3/gwt/maven
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Revision: 8577
Author: rda...@google.com
Date: Thu Aug 19 12:18:26 2010
Log: Initial artifact set for GWT 2.1 M3 and App Engine 1.3.6
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=8577
Added:
/2.1.0.M3/gwt/maven
/2.1.0.M3/gwt/maven/com
/2.1.0.M3/gwt/maven/com/google
Revision: 8578
Author: rda...@google.com
Date: Thu Aug 19 12:33:19 2010
Log: Directories for the gwt-maven-plugin.
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=8578
Added:
/2.1.0.M3/gwt/maven/org
/2.1.0.M3/gwt/maven/org/codehaus
/2.1.0.M3/gwt/maven/org/codehaus/mojo
--
Revision: 8579
Author: rda...@google.com
Date: Thu Aug 19 12:36:40 2010
Log: Added gwt-maven-plugin to M3 maven repo.
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=8579
Added:
/2.1.0.M3/gwt/maven/org/codehaus/mojo/gwt-maven-plugin
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/766803/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Reviewers: rice_google.comm,
Description:
Updated common.ant.xml to copy pom.xml (if found) to build/out
Added .place-holder to ensure war dir existence
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/782801/show
Affected files:
M samples/build.xml
M samples/common.ant.xml
A
On 2010/08/19 20:05:46, conroy wrote:
Rietveld's interdiff handling is absurdly bugged.
ClearStaticData is no longer deleted, contrary to what it shows on the
summary. The only change to CompilationStateBuilder vs. HEAD is a new
comment clarifying the resourceContentCache/keepAliveLatest
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/782801/diff/1/2
File samples/build.xml (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/782801/diff/1/2#newcode64
samples/build.xml:64: target name=source description=Static analysis
of GWT source
Does this description need to be changed?
LGTM if it LGTjat.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/766803/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
On Thursday, August 19, 2010 16:36:36 Ray Cromwell wrote:
Could you use the Chrome Inspector to post the JSON payload that came back?
Sure, the response that fails on the client side is:
{result:3,related:{}}
The request here was a RequestObjectLong and I do expect 3 to be the
response of this
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/782801/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/780802/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Ready for re-review
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/780802/diff/3001/4002
File
bikeshed/src/com/google/gwt/sample/expenses/gwt/ui/employee/EmployeeEditActivity.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/780802/diff/3001/4002#newcode88
Also noticed that ValueBoxBase test wasn't running, and wasn't passing.
All better now.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/780802/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/780802/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/780802/diff/3001/4026
File user/src/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/ValueListBox.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/780802/diff/3001/4026#newcode35
user/src/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/ValueListBox.java:35: private
final MapInteger, T
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/780802/diff/3001/4026
File user/src/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/ValueListBox.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/780802/diff/3001/4026#newcode35
user/src/com/google/gwt/user/client/ui/ValueListBox.java:35: private
final MapInteger, T
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/780802/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
No more matching on rendered strings, in it goes...
On 2010/08/19 22:52:28, Ray Ryan wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/780802/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/767802/diff/1/3
File
user/src/com/google/gwt/requestfactory/client/impl/RecordJsoImpl.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/767802/diff/1/3#newcode317
user/src/com/google/gwt/requestfactory/client/impl/RecordJsoImpl.java:317:
LGTM
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 4:48 PM, cromwell...@google.com wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/767802/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Reviewers: cromwellian,
Description:
Enables test of relationship persistence.
Also finally got rid of the generics warnings around
RequestFactory.create(). Let's not do that again, mmkay?
Review by: cromwell...@google.com
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/783801/show
A little premature, the test is failing. But the rest is good to go.
On 2010/08/19 23:49:58, Ray Ryan wrote:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/783801/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/767802/diff/1/3
File
user/src/com/google/gwt/requestfactory/client/impl/RecordJsoImpl.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/767802/diff/1/3#newcode93
user/src/com/google/gwt/requestfactory/client/impl/RecordJsoImpl.java:93:
eval(xyz= + json);
Revision: 8580
Author: amitman...@google.com
Date: Thu Aug 19 13:24:10 2010
Log: Irrespective of the return type, all RF methods now go through the
valueStore.
Added a bunch of missing @Override annotations, removed an unused method in
DeltaValueStoreJsonImpl, Confirmed that instance methods
Reviewers: Lex,
Description:
Make xsiframe linker use a .js file for hosted mode so that cross site
hosted mode will work
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/784801/show
Affected files:
A dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/linker/impl/hosted.js
D
Reviewers: Ray Ryan,
Description:
Tightened up datanucleus paths to include only **/domain/*.class
Merged over a few remaining changes from bikeshed
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/776802/show
Affected files:
M samples/expenses/pom.xml
M
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/776802/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Revision: 8585
Author: rj...@google.com
Date: Thu Aug 19 14:57:33 2010
Log: rollback of Introduces ValueListBox, due to test failures.
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=8585
Added:
/trunk/user/src/com/google/gwt/app/client/ProxyBox.java
Reviewers: Nick Chalko,
Description:
ant test needs these jars
Review by: ncha...@google.com
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/785801/show
Affected files:
M user/build.xml
Index: user/build.xml
===
---
Revision: 8587
Author: rj...@google.com
Date: Thu Aug 19 17:13:42 2010
Log: Add support for Record types as method params in RequestFactory. Misc
bug fixes.
Patch by cromwell...@google.com
Review by rj...@google.com, amitman...@google.com
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/767802
Review by:
That's interesting, because Longs are supposed to be serialized as strings
not JSON numbers, I'll have to check the server code. Would you mind
posting the Request interface method definition? Does the class referenced
by @Service actually return a Long/long?
-Ray
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:00
Reviewers: cromwellian,
Description:
Fixes tests broken due to mis-use of class meta data.
Review by: cromwell...@google.com
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/786801/show
Affected files:
M
Actually, the tests are still running. I'll ping you when they pass.
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:08 PM, rj...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: cromwellian,
Description:
Fixes tests broken due to mis-use of class meta data.
Review by: cromwell...@google.com
Please review this at
Still failing. :-(
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Ray Ryan rj...@google.com wrote:
Actually, the tests are still running. I'll ping you when they pass.
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:08 PM, rj...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: cromwellian,
Description:
Fixes tests broken due to mis-use of
70 matches
Mail list logo
