> body.substring(0, i + 1) + fun + body.substring(i + 1);
Yuck.
Yeah. :-)
Have you guys already talked about just throwing the exception on the
Java side?
I think that is what John referenced on comment 12 in the issue:
"we cannot guarantee NPEs in production mode (typically you will get
But the point is it is almost certainly an error to call a method on a
null value, and catching it in DevMode would be better than replicating
the behavior of prod mode in this case.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1620805/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Agreed it's almost certainly an error, I just assumed drifting DevMode
to be stricter than prod would end up as another bug report down the
road ("hey, this failed in devmode, but not in my production app").
Perfectly willing to defer to you guys though; my original spike for
this did use a Java
Okay, updated the patch. Within the rewritten JSNI methods, before
making the jump to javascript, we check for null instances (assuming the
method isn't static).
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1620805/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1620805/diff/8001/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/shell/JavaScriptHost.java
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/shell/JavaScriptHost.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1620805/diff/8001/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/shell/JavaScriptHost.java#
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1620805/diff/8001/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/shell/rewrite/RewriteJsniMethods.java
File
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/shell/rewrite/RewriteJsniMethods.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1620805/diff/8001/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/sh
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1620805/diff/12001/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/shell/JavaScriptHost.java
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/shell/JavaScriptHost.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1620805/diff/12001/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/shell/JavaScriptHost.jav
On 2012/02/28 05:16:42, stephenh wrote:
> "instance" in the sense of "instance method"
Done.
submitted.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1620805/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
On 2012/04/09 18:33:00, rdayal wrote:
On 2012/02/28 05:16:42, stephenh wrote:
> > "instance" in the sense of "instance method"
>
> Done.
submitted.
We had to roll this back because it broke a bunch of test code in the
Google environment. I think that this patch is in the right, but the
test
We had to roll this back because it broke a bunch of test code
Cool, I saw that, was wondering what had happened.
I think that this patch is in the right, but the test code was not
carefully written
Good, I was hoping you thought the patch was still right.
Stephen, is that ok with you?
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:38 PM, wrote:
>
> We had to roll this back because it broke a bunch of test code
>>
>
> Cool, I saw that, was wondering what had happened.
>
>
> I think that this patch is in the right, but the test code was not
>> carefully written
>>
>
> Good, I was hoping you thought
it seems likely that external code we can't test also does so
True, although my assumption is that since this is a DevMode-only
behavior (null becomes window), we're actually doing everyone a favor by
fixing the behavior to match web mode, and in doing so highlighting
previously-missed/potenti
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:23 PM, wrote:
> True, although my assumption is that since this is a DevMode-only
> behavior (null becomes window), we're actually doing everyone a favor by
> fixing the behavior to match web mode, and in doing so highlighting
> previously-missed/potential bugs in their a
> I agree, but asking anyone to have to make changes in working code
Two things, one is that I don't think any code that relies on this
behavior could really be called "working". It's dev mode mistakingly
acting differently than web mode.
> as a consequence of upgrading increases the cost, even
> I'd rather spend that time working on SuperDevMode and moving people
> over to that, where this whole issue of differing implementations
> between web mode and dev mode goes away.
+1 to that.
> I just don't think this issue is one where we should start to break
> backwards compatibility.
That
15 matches
Mail list logo
