LGTM
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:47 PM, John Tamplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, here is a revised patch which recursively follows the inheritance
> chains, and the test improved to check for that.
>
> --
> John A. Tamplin
> Software Engineer (GWT), Google
>
--~--~-~--~~--
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Ray Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> LGTM
>
Thanks, committed to releases/1.6 at r3874.
--
John A. Tamplin
Software Engineer (GWT), Google
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--
Ok, here is a revised patch which recursively follows the inheritance
chains, and the test improved to check for that.
--
John A. Tamplin
Software Engineer (GWT), Google
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~---
** KeyGenerator.java:191
Shouldn't you be recursively checking all superclasses? Hmm. Actually,
since these things are interfaces, why check super at all?
** CommonInterfaceAnnotations.java:22
Nit: need to break up 'graphs in javadoc
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:50 PM, John Tamplin <[EMAIL PROTE
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:26 PM, John Tamplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Ray Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> ** KeyGenerator.java:191
>>
>> Shouldn't you be recursively checking all superclasses? Hmm. Actually,
>> since these things are interfaces, why chec
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Ray Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ** KeyGenerator.java:191
>
> Shouldn't you be recursively checking all superclasses? Hmm. Actually,
> since these things are interfaces, why check super at all?
>
You can theoretically have your own concrete implementation for
