Reviewers: Dan Rice,
Message:
Review requested.
Description:
GWT RPC doesn't conside GenericType to be serializable because it
doesn't think that Void is serializable.
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/294801/show
Affected files:
A
user/src/com/google/gwt/user/clien
Could you please explain this? I would assert that GenericType should
be serializable if and only if it contains no fields of type T, where T is
substituted for void. Do you disagree with this assertion, or is there a
shortcoming in the current implementation that makes the assertion fail to
be a
I don't follow your assertion, scott. I'm pretty sure that null is the
only legal value for a Void field, so what's the big deal about
serializing it?
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Scott Blum wrote:
> Could you please explain this? I would assert that GenericType should
> be serializable if a
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Ray Ryan wrote:
> I don't follow your assertion, scott. I'm pretty sure that null is the
> only legal value for a Void field, so what's the big deal about
> serializing it?
null is the only value. This supports a command-style use case where
you have an RPC inte
Oh, I get your point now. Sorry.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Ray Ryan wrote:
> I don't follow your assertion, scott. I'm pretty sure that null is the
> only legal value for a Void field, so what's the big deal about
> serializing it?
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Scott Blum wrote:
