LGTM
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Ray Ryan wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:04 AM, BobV wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Ray Ryan wrote:
>> > Yes, please, please, please make this instance based. Every serious app
>> I've
>> > seen winds up creating its own interface to
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:04 AM, BobV wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Ray Ryan wrote:
> > Yes, please, please, please make this instance based. Every serious app
> I've
> > seen winds up creating its own interface to wrap around our static calls
> to
> > make them testable (and the on
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Ray Ryan wrote:
> Yes, please, please, please make this instance based. Every serious app I've
> seen winds up creating its own interface to wrap around our static calls to
> make them testable (and the ones on commands in particular), and it's
> generally a painf
Yes, please, please, please make this instance based. Every serious app I've
seen winds up creating its own interface to wrap around our static calls to
make them testable (and the ones on commands in particular), and it's
generally a painful retrofit. It also becomes a real difficultly for those
w
Assuming you've tested the RESCUE SSW behavior and that Joel likes it,
this LGTM.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/77820
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/77820/diff/1004/1005#newcode23
> Line 23: public class Scheduler {
The public Scheduler class is now abstract.
> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/77820/diff/1004/1005#newcode123
> Line 123: public static void schedulePause() {
schedulePause has been rem
Overall, very nice. The key, though ultimately superficial, design
question is whether to make the main methods non-static. See the comment
in Scheduler.java for details.
There are a couple of other minor points.
N.B. I didn't really scrutinize it for logical correctness, although the
basic impl
