[gwt-contrib] Re: RFC : Adding deprecations to gwt.xml files

2009-04-07 Thread Isaac Truett
I'd vote for a consistent message supplied by the compiler/hosted mode and freeform text provided by the module developer. I think that works fine for JavaDoc @deprecated. URLs and the names of successor modules can be included in the freeform text when appropriate. Unless you're planning to plug

[gwt-contrib] Re: RFC : Adding deprecations to gwt.xml files

2009-04-07 Thread Joel Webber
I have to say I'm with Isaac on this one. I think it's best to keep things as simple as possible, and to keep the documentation in one place wherever possible. There's nothing stopping anyone from putting URLs in the explanatory text if they want, but I wouldn't want to have to do that in the

[gwt-contrib] Re: RFC : Adding deprecations to gwt.xml files

2009-04-07 Thread Isaac Truett
Oh, and... as much as I hate to suggest it, we will probably need some way to suppress the deprecation warning. Maybe: inherits name=example.module.Foo ignore-deprecation=true / Where ignore-deprecation is optional and defaults to false. I'm tempted to say that ignore-deprecation=true on a

[gwt-contrib] Re: RFC : Adding deprecations to gwt.xml files

2009-04-06 Thread Bruce Johnson
Sounds pretty useful. We should lock its behavior down more, though. Maybe just deprecated superceded-by=othermodule/ where superceded-by is optional. It would be helpful to have consistent-looking deprecation messages, so we probably shouldn't leave the text open-ended. On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at

[gwt-contrib] Re: RFC : Adding deprecations to gwt.xml files

2009-04-06 Thread BobV
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote: Sounds pretty useful. We should lock its behavior down more, though. Maybe Locking it down is just going to get in the way because we can't cover all of the types of messages that you'd necessarily want to be able to convey

[gwt-contrib] Re: RFC : Adding deprecations to gwt.xml files

2009-04-06 Thread Bruce Johnson
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 1:35 PM, BobV b...@google.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote: Sounds pretty useful. We should lock its behavior down more, though. Maybe Locking it down is just going to get in the way because we can't cover all of the

[gwt-contrib] Re: RFC : Adding deprecations to gwt.xml files

2009-04-06 Thread BobV
I don't think that handles the most common use case, though. Wouldn't the most common thing be, Don't use this; use that? Most people will go to the absolute minimum trouble necessary, so it's unlikely people would be included to create an actual URL to point to. (IMHO) I'm thinking of the

[gwt-contrib] Re: RFC : Adding deprecations to gwt.xml files

2009-04-06 Thread Bruce Johnson
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:17 PM, BobV b...@google.com wrote: I'm thinking of the case that I have where transitioning from ImmutableResourceBundle to ClientBundle could use some documentation to indicate where there have been changes. So how about use this instead and more information here

[gwt-contrib] Re: RFC : Adding deprecations to gwt.xml files

2009-04-06 Thread BobV
How does that manifest as XML? deprecated superceded-by=othermodule href=http://google.com/something; / where both attributes are optional. The URL will be presented by using the AbstractTreeLogger.log() method that takes a HelpInfo object. -- Bob Vawter Google Web Toolkit Team

[gwt-contrib] Re: RFC : Adding deprecations to gwt.xml files

2009-04-06 Thread John Tamplin
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:26 PM, BobV b...@google.com wrote: How does that manifest as XML? deprecated superceded-by=othermodule href=http://google.com/something; / where both attributes are optional. The URL will be presented by using the AbstractTreeLogger.log() method that takes a

[gwt-contrib] Re: RFC : Adding deprecations to gwt.xml files

2009-04-06 Thread Bruce Johnson
(BTW, I could be wrong about the whole let's not have freeform text. It was just one guy's opinion that it makes things too inconsistent. I'd like to hear if other people agree/disagree.) @Other people: agree/disagree? Assuming people do agree that it's a bit better to avoid freeform text, then

[gwt-contrib] Re: RFC : Adding deprecations to gwt.xml files

2009-04-06 Thread John Tamplin
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote: (BTW, I could be wrong about the whole let's not have freeform text. It was just one guy's opinion that it makes things too inconsistent. I'd like to hear if other people agree/disagree.) @Other people: agree/disagree? I

[gwt-contrib] Re: RFC : Adding deprecations to gwt.xml files

2009-04-06 Thread Bruce Johnson
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:51 PM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote: (BTW, I could be wrong about the whole let's not have freeform text. It was just one guy's opinion that it makes things too inconsistent. I'd like to hear

[gwt-contrib] Re: RFC : Adding deprecations to gwt.xml files

2009-04-06 Thread Ian Petersen
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote: (BTW, I could be wrong about the whole let's not have freeform text. It was just one guy's opinion that it makes things too inconsistent. I'd like to hear if other people agree/disagree.) @Other people: agree/disagree?