[gwt-contrib] Re: About a proposed to change to SafeHtml's UriUtils

IMHO it's a small enough addition that totally makes sense and it's nothing that would block any future direction of GWT. I don't see any real reason to not accept the contribution. The points mentioned are either clunky (pull in a complete different library just to get a single small feature

Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: About a proposed to change to SafeHtml's UriUtils

I agree entirely, just trying to see this as a potential contributor with its associated steep learning curve, and address the question of "Should we stop adding new features?". we're rather in a situation of "I'd like to add this new feature to GWT; > and this is something I could do in my

Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: About a proposed to change to SafeHtml's UriUtils

FWIW, I agree with tbroyer's assessment and the suggestion to use a helper sounds reasonable. On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Thomas Broyer wrote: > > > On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 5:33:31 PM UTC+1, Colin Alworth wrote: >> >> With 3.0 on the horizon, we've promised

[gwt-contrib] Re: About a proposed to change to SafeHtml's UriUtils

On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 5:33:31 PM UTC+1, Colin Alworth wrote: > > With 3.0 on the horizon, we've promised consistency of a sort in 2.x, and > without 3.0 actually in sight, 2.x is going to need to see active > development. Encouraging a third generation of url tools is not a bad >

[gwt-contrib] Re: About a proposed to change to SafeHtml's UriUtils

With 3.0 on the horizon, we've promised consistency of a sort in 2.x, and without 3.0 actually in sight, 2.x is going to need to see active development. Encouraging a third generation of url tools is not a bad thing, but only switching over half-way leaves something to be desired. I'll play