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
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
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
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
>
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