On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:43:25 AM UTC+2, Brian Slesinsky wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Haberman
stephen@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
nor do we want to divide up the open source build into that many jars.
I dunno, I assumed we were headed towards 1
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:30 AM, Ray Cromwell cromwell...@google.comwrote:
I favor splitting things up into reasonable chunks that have
coherence. e.g. Logging, RPC, RequestFactory, Editors, UI Widgets,
ClientBundle, Core, Events, Dom, etc.
For example, I should be able to get away with
Do you think it would be possible to share the BUILD file(s), or a
stripped-down version of it, even privately?
I'd love to see how it compares to Maven and other build systems.
Now back to the CL: given the move to Git soon, which will require some
changes on your side, is it wise to make such
On 2012/09/17 20:43:56, tbroyer wrote:
Do you think it would be possible to share the BUILD file(s), or a
stripped-down
version of it, even privately?
There's a high-level overview here:
http://google-engtools.blogspot.com/2011/08/build-in-cloud-how-build-system-works.html
It doesn't
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1834803/
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
There's no reason to rebuild every GWT app and run all the tests
because one Java file in gwt.user changed that most people don't even
use.
Just to understand more, how does avoiding ant solve the problem?
If RarelyUsedFile.java in gwt-user changes, then from my reading of the
blog post, the
It doesn't explain the GWT-specific rules, but conceptually they're
not that different from the cc_library rules, or a Makefile for that
matter.
Just curious, but would stealing Lex Spoon's scala-gwt approach (writing
.jribble ASTs to disk, like .class files), allow the Google build
system to
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Stephen Haberman
stephen.haber...@gmail.com wrote:
Just to understand more, how does avoiding ant solve the problem?
If RarelyUsedFile.java in gwt-user changes, then from my reading of the
blog post, the gwt-user input/digest would have changed, so the
But if we split things up into separate build targets (and associated jars)
for different GWT modules, downstream projects can declare what they use.
Cool, makes sense, thanks for the sanity check.
nor do we want to divide up the open source build into that many jars.
I dunno, I assumed we
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Stephen Haberman
stephen.haber...@gmail.com wrote:
nor do we want to divide up the open source build into that many jars.
I dunno, I assumed we were headed towards 1 module == 1 jar, but would defer
to
others/Thomas since he's been working on it.
Well,
10 matches
Mail list logo
