Re: [gwt-contrib] About GWT opinion in thoughtworks technology radar july 2011

The article is a poor source if one attempts to make a meaningful techincal assesment on any opinion. Sure theres a lot of buzzwords but almiost no technically minded examples to back any of the assumptions. Does it show you why X is better than Y at attempting Z. No, so what your basically left is

[gwt-contrib] Re: Make generator result caching framework api available publically. (issue1468804)

LGTM On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 4:17 PM, wrote: > Well, a generator has to keep it's own state anyway, in practice. In > the case of AbstractClientBundleGenerator, it actually creates a > ResourceContext and passes that around, along with the GeneratorContext > (this was before any IncrementalGener

[gwt-contrib] Re: Make generator result caching framework api available publically. (issue1468804)

Well, a generator has to keep it's own state anyway, in practice. In the case of AbstractClientBundleGenerator, it actually creates a ResourceContext and passes that around, along with the GeneratorContext (this was before any IncrementalGenerator enhancements). In the case of RPC, there are 2 S

[gwt-contrib] [google-web-toolkit] r10491 committed - Include enclosing class in generated class name...

Revision: 10491 Author: ncha...@google.com Date: Wed Aug 3 12:02:05 2011 Log: Include enclosing class in generated class name Review at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1499804 Review by: rchan...@google.com http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=10491 Modifi

[gwt-contrib] Re: Make generator result caching framework api available publically. (issue1468804)

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:36 PM, wrote: > On 2011/08/03 20:03:28, rjrjr wrote: > >> Oh, and putClientData seems like a better name. >> > > > Done > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Ray Ryan >> > wrote: > > > I'm still not crazy about having addClientData() and getClien

[gwt-contrib] Re: Make generator result caching framework api available publically. (issue1468804)

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1468804/diff/7001/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/RebindMode.java File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/RebindMode.java (right): http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1468804/diff/7001/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/RebindMode.java#newcode52 dev/c

[gwt-contrib] Re: Make generator result caching framework api available publically. (issue1468804)

On 2011/08/03 20:03:28, rjrjr wrote: Oh, and putClientData seems like a better name. Done On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Ray Ryan wrote: > I'm still not crazy about having addClientData() and getClientData() on > separate objects. It seems to me that you've vi

[gwt-contrib] Re: Make generator result caching framework api available publically. (issue1468804)

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1468804/ -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors

[gwt-contrib] Re: Replace RequestFactoryInterfaceValidator with an annotation-processor-based approach. (issue1503804)

oops, I missed your first reply. The server code won't accept the RequestFactory interface if it hasn't been validated. A runtime error will occur, telling the user to run the ValidationTool. answers my question. -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors

[gwt-contrib] Re: Replace RequestFactoryInterfaceValidator with an annotation-processor-based approach. (issue1503804)

Does this mean something similar to RequestFactoryInterfaceValidator will still need to be present? I ask because of http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=6640 where RequestFactoryInterfaceValidator seems to be getting in my way. -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google

[gwt-contrib] Re: Make generator result caching framework api available publically. (issue1468804)

Oh, and putClientData seems like a better name. On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Ray Ryan wrote: > I'm still not crazy about having addClientData() and getClientData() on > separate objects. It seems to me that you've violated your own principal > that the GeneratorContext should be the only obje

[gwt-contrib] Re: Make generator result caching framework api available publically. (issue1468804)

I'm still not crazy about having addClientData() and getClientData() on separate objects. It seems to me that you've violated your own principal that the GeneratorContext should be the only object that has to get passed to the generator's helpers. Can addClientData() move to the context? That woul

[gwt-contrib] Re: Make generator result caching framework api available publically. (issue1468804)

Nothing else important to add. This is nice! http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1468804/diff/7001/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/RebindMode.java File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/RebindMode.java (right): http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1468804/diff/7001/dev/core/src/com/googl

[gwt-contrib] Re: Make generator result caching framework api available publically. (issue1468804)

Some responses. I did consider most of your suggestions, and in fact for a while I did have things as you suggest, so great minds think alike :). I'll outline my reasoning: First, IncrementalGenerators have to live in the same ecosystem as all the currently extent non-incremental Generator impl

[gwt-contrib] GWT Code Review planned outage Thursday 4 Aug 2011 5pm ET

We will be putting the Rietveld server at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/ into read-only mode for a few hours at about 5pm Eastern Time tomorrow, Thursday August 4th, to deal with some maintenance. rjrjr -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors

[gwt-contrib] Re: Replace RequestFactoryInterfaceValidator with an annotation-processor-based approach. (issue1503804)

Per offline conversation, I've removed the annotation processor from requestfactory-client.jar. This means that the server code must be built with requestfactory-apt.jar, but doesn't need to be deployed with it. http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1503804/ -- http://groups.google.com/group/Goog

[gwt-contrib] Re: Make generator result caching framework api available publically. (issue1468804)

Still reviewing, but here's a recap of offline initial reaction: I think the thing to do is • give generateIncrementally() a RebindMode return value • unify the rest of the RebindResult class with CachedGeneratorResult • rename CachedGeneratorResult IncrementalGeneratorContext and give it all t

[gwt-contrib] Re: Replace RequestFactoryInterfaceValidator with an annotation-processor-based approach. (issue1503804)

http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1503804/diff/1/samples/dynatablerf/build.xml File samples/dynatablerf/build.xml (right): http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1503804/diff/1/samples/dynatablerf/build.xml#newcode8 samples/dynatablerf/build.xml:8: On 2011/08/02 17:43:26, rjrjr wrote: This is a

Re: [gwt-contrib] About GWT opinion in thoughtworks technology radar july 2011

When you read opinions like this, you have to interpret the author's perspective relative to his/her incentives. Thus, GWT consultants will observe the reasons GWT is really good. Consultants skilled in things other than GWT will find reasons that their solutions are better. There isn't a "right" a