On 11 sep, 01:17, BobV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch adds the concept of module properties which do not affect
> deferred-binding decisions and may be set to any string value. These
> configuration properties are exposed to Generators and Linkers as a
> means of providing global config
Let me play devil's advocate, though in advance I'll admit I'm not sure I
have a good point. But I think I do.
Why shouldn't these simply be normal deferred binding properties? Consider
compiler optimization flags we may want to add in the future. It is quite
possible that you'd want to compile mul
I think Bob (and Thomas's) point is that sometimes you have configuration
data for which there is an infinite number of options, where it doesn't even
make sense to think of the possible options as a set.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Bruce Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me play devi
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Scott Blum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think Bob (and Thomas's) point is that sometimes you have configuration
> data for which there is an infinite number of options, where it doesn't even
> make sense to think of the possible options as a set.
>
Oh, here's o
Could we list some examples, so that we can refer to this thread in the
future to understand our motivations?
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Scott Blum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think Bob (and Thomas's) point is that sometimes you have configuration
> data for which there is an infinite n
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Bruce Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could we list some examples, so that we can refer to this thread in the
> future to understand our motivations?
In summary, the motivation is to allow for properties that have no
well-defined set of possible values or th
I swear I'm not just trying to be a pain. For things like this that don't
quite merit a design doc ahead of time, these back-and-forth discussions
have to happen during the code review.
So, would we want to separate out linker variables from generator variables?
(I can imagine arguments as to why y
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Bruce Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I swear I'm not just trying to be a pain. For things like this that don't
> quite merit a design doc ahead of time, these back-and-forth discussions
> have to happen during the code review.
No offense taken or annoyance g
w00t! Committed as r3652 after some pair prog/cleanup.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
What release of GWT will contain this patch?
Thanks
Ajoy
On Sep 15, 5:43 pm, "Scott Blum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> w00t! Committed as r3652 after some pair prog/cleanup.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~-
Should be 1.6.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:01 PM, joy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What release of GWT will contain this patch?
>
> Thanks
> Ajoy
>
> On Sep 15, 5:43 pm, "Scott Blum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > w00t! Committed as r3652 after some pair prog/cleanup.
>
> >
>
--~--~-~--
11 matches
Mail list logo
