On 2010-07-26, at 4:56 PM, John Tamplin wrote:
Is the new linker designed to curtail extension, or to sanely encourage it?
The existing primary linkers ended up getting extended in brittle ways.
That's a good point. Let's make it a final class to start with, and open up
extension points
I don't have a strong opinion about it. They can be non-final, with simply
no particular effort to truly make them extensible.
I think it might be possible to move the template JS files to
GWT-translated code with extension points managed through rebinding and
overriding. Until then, making
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:56 PM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote:
Well, we do know there will be other linkers, and if there aren't extension
points defined they will be done via cut-and-paste, which is what led to the
current state we are in.
No question that extension points are useful.
SGTM as far as process.
Is the new linker designed to curtail extension, or to sanely encourage it?
The existing primary linkers ended up getting extended in brittle ways.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Lex Spoon sp...@google.com wrote:
Joel, Miguel, GWTers,
I am trying to phase in a new
[+matt, who's one of the few people I know outside of Google creating custom
linkers]
I'm 100% on board with this as well. These things weren't all that carefully
designed for extension from the beginning, so it's going to be difficult to
make significant changes to them without breaking existing
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Scott Blum sco...@google.com wrote:
SGTM as far as process.
Is the new linker designed to curtail extension, or to sanely encourage it?
The existing primary linkers ended up getting extended in brittle ways.
That's a good point. Let's make it a final class
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Lex Spoon sp...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Scott Blum sco...@google.com wrote:
SGTM as far as process.
Is the new linker designed to curtail extension, or to sanely encourage
it? The existing primary linkers ended up getting
